Re: Inappropriate changes to front page text [Was: Re:

On Tuesday 21 December 2004 23:51, Omar Kilani wrote:
> >>Perhaps it would be wise to think about and thoroughly discuss a change
> >>prior to committing it to CVS, especially if the intention is to go live
> >>with it.
> >
> > Eat your own dog food; you reverted Dave's change without saying anything
> > to anyone on this list. If I were the type to get into pissing contests
> > I'd do the same right back to you.
>
> There has already been a discussion and agreement about the text. What
> it was *prior* to the Christmas-related text is what was agreed upon, so
> it was set back to that. This isn't difficult to change--it would take a
> couple of minutes at most to change the content once there is proper
> agreement on it, even if that means putting the Christmas-related text
> back up.
>

Let me see if my history is correct. Emily changed the code in CVS (over
writing Dave's previous message that had several names listed in it) to a
wording that seems to me to be completly created on her own with no
proposal/discussion. She then posted a message about the new announcement in
a thread that quickly tailed off into a discussion about the elephant graphic
and where to list web contributors, and afaict recieved no comments about
whether people agreed on the content or not. (Which is pretty much irrelvent
since she changed Dave's code a priori anyways)

> You suggested the change, and Dave applied it. There was no thought of
> implications, and no consensus reached (two is not a consensus.)
>

Your rewriting history for your own purposes. You have no way to know if there
was any thought to implications (there was on my part). And I counter your
claims of no consensous with a claim that no one objected.

> The problem is assuming people are happy with something just because
> they don't say anything. Most people on the list lurk and observe, but
> don't comment. That isn't agreement.
>

How long does one have to wait to get tacit approval from every member of the
list?

> The point is that there has to be more discussion, and more time for it.
> If a proper discussion had ensued about this point, the same *message*
> could have been integrated into the front page, with, e.g., a "Happy
> Holidays from the PostgreSQL team" heading, and better written text. And
> it could have been made to look much better than what it did.
>
> Absolute control over what goes into the website should not be in the
> hands of two people.

And yet here again you reverted back the changes with no discussion at all.
At best you had two people in favor of the change to your one being against
it and you still decided that control over what was on the site could sit
nicely in the hands of one person.

> No, one is not expected to discuss changes to minor
> things, fixing up formatting, etc. But to change the front page text
> without weighing up the implications, the advantages and disadvantages,
> the message that it sends on behalf of the PostgreSQL group, without
> proper discussion is irresponsible.
>
> Perhaps the proposal to change the text should have been started in a
> separate thread, as introducing it within a very long thread about
> something else is going to increase the chance of oversight by the list
> members.
>

Huh? The thread it was introduced in was about anything people thought had to
be changed before we went live, and it was the 4th post into that thread.
I'll grant that there have been a lot of posts on the list in the last few
days so certainly someone could miss seeing posts here and there, but given
the timeframe things are being worked on that seems like a pretty legitiment
place to have brought it up.

> That we're now discussing the content properly, with input from all
> sides, is exactly what should have happened in the first place, prior to
> committing the Christmas-related change.
>

I shudder to think that we're going to have to go through all this everytime
someone wants to change the main announcement...

--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL