On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Justin Erenkrantz
<justin_at_erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 9:42 AM, Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think Mike's original point is that he has been trying to engage the
>> list about what links belong all along. There has been some feedback,
>> some on IRC, some here. I thought he was just saying to you that it
>> was not right to come in and add a link without discussing it. If we
>> open that door, the site is soon going to be crap again with
>> everyone's pet link in the nav-bar.
>
> Then, make the website R-T-C for everyone. But, in my mind, it's not
> fair to say that certain full committers can use C-T-R and others
> can't.
>
> In my mind, it is not healthy to create a separate class of *full*
> committers who can commit without review to the website and others who
> can.
First off, we never could have gotten the initial site migrated over
with a review requirement. Especially given that it would have been
unlikely to get review. Look at the lists, it was tried.
Second, I do not believe anyone is suggesting you do not have a right
to update the site now or in the future. The site nav, the overall
look and feel are always going to be "religious" issues. They already
have been. I agree Mike should not have just reverted your commit,
especially if you perceive it that way. But I do not think it was
unreasonable to question the commit or explain what we were trying to
do. Perhaps he should have started the conversation that way, rather
then ask you to revert.
Once the Developer Resources link is restored, I think the right
outcome will have been reached.
--
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
Received on 2010-02-03 18:50:24 CET