[MPlayer-dev-eng] [POLICY] clarify conditions for functionality removal

[The Wanderer]

Diego Biurrun wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:08:55PM -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> 
>> Diego Biurrun wrote:
>> 
>>> It *is* current practice.  No rules are set in stone.  Things are
>>> discussed on dev-eng until a consensus is reached.
>> 
>> I'd just like to note that that is not what the current form says,
>> nor is it what the old form said about "changing behaviour". No
>> mention is made of "consensus"; all it says is that discussion must
>> take place, not that the discussion must reach any particular
>> conclusion first.
> 
> It also does not say how long the discussion has to be, so could you
> interpret this to mean that a single warning mail is enough?  All the
> rules imply some common sense.  Words always have a context that has
> to be taken into consideration.  The context here is current
> practice.

I would not think that that would qualify as "discussion", no - because
a discussion involves interaction between multiple people, and a single
warning mail is just a comment by one single person.

I try, when I can (and sometimes even in the privacy of my own head), to
phrase things to as to avoid as much as possible the possibility of
having their meaning changed even if intentionally taken out of context.
Since the purpose of the explanation in the text file is to explain to
someone who does *not* know the context what the rule is, I think it's
worth going at least a little out of the way to be clear.

>> Saying "discussing it on the mplayer-dev-eng mailing list and
>> receiving some form of consensus approval" would avoid the problem.
> 
> That's what I take "discuss" to mean in this context.  I don't think
> this needs further clarification.  If people disagree, a constructive
> road to take would be to propose clarifications.

I do disagree with that. Yes, it is one possible interpretation of the
term, but it is not the only one and not everyone will take it that way;
in point of fact, I myself would not take it that way just from reading
the file, although my rational side would intervene and tell me
"obviously what they wrote is not what they meant".

My previous message, quoted above, provides my first suggestion for a
clarification... I could of course come up with others, but (at least at
first) they'd probably be rather clunkier.

>>> And don't simply revert a commit that is obviously under 
>>> controversial dispute without even waiting _a few hours_ for me
>>> to answer your last email.  This is beyond rude.
>> 
>> Agreed, it is. It is also precisely the sort of behaviour which
>> would be 'allowed', with respect to feature removal, under the
>> current phrasing of the rule under discussion. After all,
>> discussion of his proposed change (reverting your change) has taken
>> place...
> 
> You'll be very aware of the difference between "has taken place" and
> "is taking place".

Yes, I am aware of the difference. However, just because there is
discussion still going on does not mean that some discussion has not
taken place; the rule gives no indication that the discussion must come
to an end before the commit can be made.

This is legalistic nitpicking, without question - but there are some
reasons why legalese came to exist in the first place, and the way I
figure it, we might as well take advantage of the fact that I can think
in the language if I need to.

> Maybe I assumed the discussion to be over prematurely, but at least I
> waited two full days and the majority of voices in the thread was in
> favor or neutral...

Oh, I saw no problem with your behaviour in the case at hand; I don't
much like siding with Ivan on even the minor point I'm agreeing with him
on here. However, although I probably wouldn't have gone so far as to
raise the issue if he hadn't spoken up, the fact that you did nothing
wrong in making your commit does not change the fact that the current
phrasing is so readily subject to misinterpretation.

-- 
       The Wanderer

Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.