[Mailman-Developers] Informal "MEP" process, anyone?
kmccann at cruciverb.com
Thu Nov 17 13:28:19 CET 2005
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Kevin> Rather than look at what has been done in the way of
> Kevin> patches I'd be more inclined to contribute toward a design
> Kevin> for MM3. I have actually worked on the specs for a
> Kevin> SQL-enabled MLM system, based on user and admin
> Kevin> requirements.
>That would be a fine step forward! Whether it works better than what
>I suggested depends on how fast you get past the singularity of "I".
Is this fair, Stephen? The word "I" was used to indicate who had worked
on the specs, not who would be involved in implementing them. Why
insinuate a personality trait here?
>The point of the process I described (and its model, ie the Python
>Enhancement Proposal process) is to show that there's broad or deep
>support in the community. Whatever else you do, you need to get
>concrete discussion going to show that there is a group of "enough"
>users with consensus on what the "important" requirements are, and
>what those requirements are.
I'd love to engage in such discussion, provided I not get beaten up at
every comment, question, idea.
> Kevin> It would be nice to see developments happen in the MM
> Kevin> project, but ultimately another project may be required to
> Kevin> make certain things happen.
>Oh, it probably will end up being another project, and it'll get to
>something merely useful in about the same effort and time that would
>have taken the Mailman project to excellence. We've seen that happen
>often enough. :-(
I'd prefer it not be another project. Which is why I'm hoping for MM3
success. So aside from my initial, poorly-crafted message, which has
obvioulsy hit a raw nerve, are we really at odds when all is said and done?
More information about the Mailman-Developers