Okay, Jared, you touched a spot that I've got to point at, teammate.

On 5/11/2011 2:01 PM, Jared Camins-Esakov wrote:

has a concrete suggestion

Here, precisely, is what's needed, rather that someone kvetching about a process that they don't approve of. If someone is unhappy with the current process--as sane as it seems to me and (apparently) many others--then that's fine; no one requires that you be happy with it.

But bring a concrete alternative that isn't "go back, go back!".... The community has proven that they're willing to hear new ideas, over and over again, and no one's gonna throw you over the wall without listening first.

There's no such thing as an easy way to do what we're trying to do--it's too big, and too complex, for "easy." Any process will of necessity have a bottleneck or two, no avoiding it. But the current process, as demonstrated by the 3.4 release, *works,* and it's only going to get better. If someone has an alternative that they think might work better, bring it. Upsetting Chris and others is *not* a process that will work better.

--
D Ruth Bavousett
Lead Migration Specialist
ByWater Solutions
Support and Consulting for Open Source Software
VISIT US AT ALA: BOOTH 732
Headquarters: Santa Barbara, CA
Office: Washington, DC
Phone/Fax (888)900-8944
http://bywatersolutions.com
ruth@bywatersolutions.com