[Bf-committers] Policy for decision making process

[Brecht Van Lommel]

Agreed. I think even if some discussions are more efficient to do on
IRC, offline, ..., the rationale for technical decisions should always
end up archived on developer.blender.org and should not be presented
as a a foregone conclusion, though in the end the module owners or
project maintainers decide of course.

Personally I would also like to see developers use
developer.blender.org or wiki.blender.org always for presenting design
docs, instead of Google docs, blogs, github repos, or other formats
that are sometimes used. Or at least add a developer.blender.org task
were updates are posted and which people can subscribe to. Often it's
difficult to be even aware something is going.

We definitely need to do a better job of communicating roadmaps and
plans, not as promises to users but for developers to be able to get
involved more easily and avoid surprises when people submit patches
that don't fit the plans the module owners have in mind.


On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Sergey Sharybin <sergey.vfx at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While i see that some level of private communication is needed when dealing
> with studios who doesnt' do Open Movies to understand their workflow better
> and such, that's where private commuication ends IMO. All the technical
> details of both short and long terms of Blender development should be moved
> to piblic. This also includes all the roadmaps and such.
>
> I agree with Campbell that it should be formalized and put in a way that we
> communicate development in public.
>
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Joel Godin <joelgodin at ymail.com> wrote:
>
>> Amen.  I think that's what 'open' in 'open source' is supposed to mean.
>>
>>
>>
>>     On Saturday, July 16, 2016 3:16 AM, Campbell Barton <
>> ideasman42 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>  Hi, recently a private group was setup for Blender developers and
>> professional users
>> with active developers receiving invites (unofficial, unrelated to the
>> Blender-Foundation/Institute).
>>
>> While there nothing wrong with people setting up their own private
>> communication channels,
>> it raises a concern regarding decision making policy.
>>
>> So far we have been quite informal in our development process without
>> minimal rules & policy documents.
>> Its even possible we discussed this already, but I couldn't find any
>> information on it, only [0] which doesn't cover very much.
>>
>> I'd be more comfortable that developers are part of private groups
>> like this if we had a policy similar to the Apache software project,
>> that is:
>>
>>  "Project technical decisions MUST be made and communicated on public
>> and archived places." [1]
>>
>> This is formalizing what we're already doing (for the most part), on
>> the mailing lists and developer.blender.org.
>>
>> I'm proposing to update our policy document to include this text.
>>
>>
>> [0]: https://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Dev:Doc/Projects/Policy
>> [1]: https://www.apache.org/dev/project-requirements#governance (second
>> point)
>>
>> --
>> - Campbell
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bf-committers mailing list
>> Bf-committers at blender.org
>> https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bf-committers mailing list
>> Bf-committers at blender.org
>> https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>>
>
>
>
> --
> With best regards, Sergey Sharybin
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at blender.org
> https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers