On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 03:38:07PM -0500, phobos@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 10:57:06PM -0500, nickm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 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 > process? 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 the future. 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.) yrs, -- Nick Mathewson
Attachment:
pgpYLLuaXfD3C.pgp
Description: PGP signature