If the person/people in charge aren't making the right decisions without taking what implementers/other party's responsible for doing the work are saying there are going to be big problems
There will always be "implementers/other party's responsible for doing the work" who think that the "person/people in charge aren't making the right decisions".
If we have to wait for all parties to agree, then we'll be waiting for a very long time.
The people in charge aren't there to follow the orders (including the mutually exclusive ones) of everybody else.
They are there to do what they think is right - and at some point they'll have to be given the opportunity to do that.
I'm not saying that we've reached that point just yet, but if we're never going to let them do their job then there's no point in having them there at all.
Earlier today, Nicholas Clark posted a PSC meeting report that contained:
* The intent is that we continue to do timeboxed stable releases annua
+lly
* When we hit “all the 7 features” then it’s 7 - i.e. most of the chan
+ges for 7 may well be released first in 5.x releases.
* 7 won’t be infinitely far away - if it turns out that a feature will
+ take too long, then that’s for 7.x.0, or even 8
* for now the focus is on the obvious low-hanging fruit that can be re
+ady for a 5.36.0
* developing the plan for 7 remains on our list, and some of the 5.36
+work may result in things deemed "for 7".
That's a long way from the perl 7 plans that Sawyer announced, all those months ago.
Looks like the message is finally getting through - ie that their only job is to keep everybody happy.
Anyway ... I'll try to stay quiet about this, now.
Surely I can find something more worthy of my attention ;-)
Cheers,
Rob | [reply]
[d/l] |
