[TCLCORE] Re: Can we consider TIP #7 accepted?

[John O. <ou...@aj...>]

I think Jeff actually went through a reasonable process for TIP #7:
he agreed to sponsor the TIP, waited a couple of days, noticed that
there was additional support and no dissent, then sent a follow-up
message asking people to speak up quickly or else the TIP would be
approved by TYANNOTT.  Seems to me that's all it should take.
When a TIP appears, it's a warning to everyone that you better
read it and voice objections in the next couple of days if you care.

Continuing in my anti-process rut, I'd prefer not to add lots of
phases to the handling of the TIP ("Vote: pending", "Vote: in process",
etc.) since each phase will add overhead and delay.  If you want
to add a bit more structure, I'd suggest that TIPs start off in a
"Discussion" state; after a couple of days, if there has been support
but no objection, then the sponsor should be able to declare the
TIP approved (at the time a TIP is created it could be marked with a
time 48-72 hours in the future by which everyone had better speak up
if they have objections).  A "Voting" state should only be needed if
there is unresolved disagreement.

-John-

At 03:22 PM 10/30/2000 -0500, Donald G Porter wrote:
> > > > I know that Don wanted to leave more time open for discussion, but
> > > > in the case of TIP #7 (Windows timer improvements), it was a
> > > > pre-existing improvement with discussion.  We've also had three
> > > > Yeah's (JohnO, Donal, myself), with no objections.
> > > 
> > > How can anyone have cast a vote, when you haven't yet called for 
> > > a vote on the matter?
> > 
> > We don't need to vote on every TIP. 
>
>We must be using the same words to refer to different things.
>
>In its life cycle, a TIP has to move from "State: Draft" to
>"State: Approved".  That move indicates approval by TCT.  The 
>process by which TCT grants that approval is what I'm calling
>a "vote".
>
>That "vote" can be a simple as two TCT members saying "yes" and
>no TCT members saying "no".  The second half of that requirement
>is the tricky half, because it insists on the non-existence of
>something rather than the existence of something.  In order to pin
>down non-existence to something well-defined, the "vote" must take
>place over a known period of time and be closed at a time certain,
>after which one can say with certainty that no "no" votes were cast.
>
>Once a more interactive means to edit TIPs is in place (I'm working on
>it), I would expect the sponsor of a TIP to change the header
>"Vote: Pending" to "Vote: In progress" at the time he calls for TCT
>consideration of the TIP.  While the vote is in progress, the contents
>of the TIP would be frozen, so all TCT members vote on the same revision
>of the proposal.  The "Vote: In progress" header could even be extended
>to include the poll closing time, so everyone interested in the TIP will
>know when the decision will be made.
>
>DGP
>
>--
>The TclCore mailing list is sponsored by Ajuba Solutions
>To unsubscribe:  email tcl...@aj... with the 
>                  word UNSUBSCRIBE as the subject.

________________________________________________________________________
John Ousterhout                            650-210-0102 tel
Chairman and Chief Technology Officer      650-230-4070 fax
Ajuba Solutions                            ou...@aj...
http://www.ajubasolutions.com

--
The TclCore mailing list is sponsored by Ajuba Solutions
To unsubscribe:  email tcl...@aj... with the 
                 word UNSUBSCRIBE as the subject.