Drafting a policy? [was: Re: Qt 3.2 requirement]

[Cornelius Schumacher]

On Wednesday 30 July 2003 02:06, Daniel Molkentin wrote:
> Hi Guillaume, thread-participants,
>
> On Wednesday 30 July 2003 00:04, Guillaume Laurent wrote:
> >No. Ask a user which one he prefers :
> >
> >- get a better, more stable desktop in a shorter time, at the
> > expense of upgrading some basic libs
> >
> >- get a buggier, less stable desktop in a longer time, but you won't
> > have to update some basic libs.
>
> Nice set of questions ;) Why do you ask them if you choose them in a
> way they are bogus to ask? Sounds like you missed a carrier as a
> politican...

> This all sounds like somebody (or some group) should sit down and
> think about how such a thing could be realistically turned into
> practice for KDE. Next step would be to post the results to
> kde-policies where they should be discussed. If the result finds a
> consensus, we should try to deploy it. We don't really have anything
> to loose at that point, except for maybe some time. But I think we
> can afford that. We should test it a bit in the 3.x phase and - if it
> is useful - deploy it for 4.0. This is not meant as a policy that
> should demotivate developers. It's in contrary something that should
> enable the developers to employ certain techniques that help with the
> issue. People were able to learn about and adapt d-pointers and other
> BC- keeping measures, why not this?

If Guillaume has missed a career as politician, you have missed a career 
as bureaucrat ;-)

Setting up policies for KDE doesn't work. Never. The only thing that 
works is to put that what is already common sense among KDE 
contributors into a policy. In this case I would consider it hopeless 
to even try it.

-- 
Cornelius Schumacher <schumacher at kde.org>