nickm at freehaven.net
Tue Feb 20 23:40:02 UTC 2007
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 03:38:07PM -0500, phobos at rootme.org wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 10:57:06PM -0500, nickm at freehaven.net wrote 3.2K bytes in 81 lines about:
> : I'm basing this aspect of the proposals idea on the Python Enhancement
> : Process, which seems to work pretty well for them. Generally,
> : preventing proposals from changing completely is a matter for the PEP
> : editor to enforce, and what constitutes a "complete change" is as a
> : matter of taste. For Tor, I think we should do more or less the same
> : thing.
> Let's take a wait and see approach. Who has final say in the
The editor is supposed to handle procedural issues. Right now, I'm
the proposal editor, since Roger wasn't enthusiastic about doing it.
We'll see how well it works out, and if anybody else wants to do it in
As for actually accepting or rejecting proposals, we'd like stuff to
happen by apparent developer consensus or something approximating it.
The core developers (Roger and me) will probably handle actually
pronouncing things accepted, rejected, and so on, and we'll try to
make good decisions when we do so, and pay extra attention to smart
people, domain experts, and good ideas in general. (For example, I
really doubt that Roger and I would want to implement anything that
Paul Syverson said was a bad move, or that we'd use any crypto that
Ian Goldberg said was broken.) In the case of disagreement between me
and Roger, Roger will probably continue to act as Benevolent Dictator
For Life. (That's a technical term from the Python community.)
(Yes, this is terribly autocratic, but hey, it's free software, and we
can always fork if power goes to Roger's head.)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 652 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the tor-dev