On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Alvaro
Herrera<alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake escribió:
>> On Wed, 2009-09-02 at 12:50 -0700, Selena Deckelmann wrote:
>> > On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 4:57 AM, Heikki
>> > Linnakangas<heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > That implies that we need a release manager. Electing one would be the
>> > > first step. That's a lot of work and responsibility, with lots of
>> > > potential for making people cross, so in practice I think as soon as
>> > > someone steps up to the plate and volunteers to do it, he's the one.
>> > >
>> > > I'm very happy with the way you ran the first commitfest. Thank you.
>> > > Want to manage the rest as well?
>> >
>> > +1 on both points.
>>
>> Isn't "core" supposed to be the release manager?
>
> Core is a decision-making committee. A release manager is a person,
> maybe two, but a committee doesn't work (unless they'd split up tasks in
> tickets and have them assigned etc, but I don't see -core doing that.)
Previous emails from Tom seem to indicate that the mandate of -core is
mostly to decide things like the timing of releases. If we gave that
job to somebody else, would there be anything left for -core to do?
If so, what? And on the flip side, it is precisely because of the
lack of a clear statement on release timing from -core that we're
having these discussions here on -hackers. Personally, I think that's
better, since -core is a private list (why?) to which most of us don't
have access, and I don't see any reason why decisions like this can't
be made in public.
The only
