--MOeiELSuYwpLEKvX
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 12:26:27PM +0200, Stephan Binner wrote:
> You seem to wrongly assume that "time-based" means the actual release dat=
e and=20
> therefore no more beta/RC releases if there are too many errors? Then you=
're=20
> wrong. I mean the date of the feature freeze: Add only the features/progr=
ams
> which are ready at a given feature freeze date (that's like the last rele=
ases
> were managed). "Feature based" in opposite would mean to define the featu=
res
> that have to be in and then delay (endlessly) the freeze until all are th=
ere.

"Time-based" still isn't stability-based. I'm all for letting the
release date slip if it means we get a better-rounded release. I
personally think it should be up to the RM's discretion. If the RM does
a bad job, the developers will complain, and either he will learn, or
there will be a new RM - it doesn't get much more simple than that.

Obviously the lack of any publicly-raised objections indicates some
level of developer faith in the RM; are there any objections anyone has
now in the RM's ability that weren't raised at the time? If there are,
I'd like to know, as the RM is an absolutely crucial position for any
project.

--=20
Daniel Stone 	     <daniel@raging.dropbear.id.au>             <dstone@kde.o=
rg>
KDE: Konquering a desktop near you - http://www.kde.org

--MOeiELSuYwpLEKvX
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+v3iTcPClnTztfv0RAgEiAJ9HMchuKvvlkFnUrsrAdZ6IO5oYxwCfdJO+
feRab6GJly4vZ9w1gO3PHSQ=
=1Ypq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--MOeiELSuYwpLEKvX--