| Re: [technology-pmc] Our role in the IP process |
Wayne Beaton schrieb: > I'm spending some quality time with CQ 2627 [1]. I think that we may > have overstepped our bounds with this CQ. I'm not sure. In that particular case it makes absolutely no sense technically to rely on an outdated version on a library. Especially not when it's a new library to be added to Orbit. Most reasons for relying on an older version of a library are not primarily technical reasons. They are mostly related to business reasons, eg. no time/resource to update, or personal reasons (eg., it works I don't care anymore). However, I think it's important for any Open Source project to *support* the lowest possible version of library but to always ship with the latest. From my experience a project relying on an outdated version of a library is less attractive to the community (eg. developers as well as admins). > As a general rule, the Technology PMC should not approve a CQ unless > there is explicit agreement from the project. +1. We should not change the CQ and approve it. It must be agreed on with the stakeholders (i.e. submitters). > Maybe we should start up a Technology PMC Policies wiki page... +1 -Gunnar -- Gunnar Wagenknecht gunnar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://wagenknecht.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature