[Mailman-Developers] Informal "MEP" process, anyone?

[Kevin McCann]

Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

>    Kevin> Rather than look at what has been done in the way of
>    Kevin> patches I'd be more inclined to contribute toward a design
>    Kevin> for MM3. I have actually worked on the specs for a
>    Kevin> SQL-enabled MLM system, based on user and admin
>    Kevin> requirements.
>
>That would be a fine step forward!  Whether it works better than what
>I suggested depends on how fast you get past the singularity of "I".
>  
>

Is this fair, Stephen? The word "I" was used to indicate who had worked 
on the specs, not who would be involved in implementing them. Why 
insinuate a personality trait here?

>The point of the process I described (and its model, ie the Python
>Enhancement Proposal process) is to show that there's broad or deep
>support in the community.  Whatever else you do, you need to get
>concrete discussion going to show that there is a group of "enough"
>users with consensus on what the "important" requirements are, and
>what those requirements are.
>  
>

I'd love to engage in such discussion, provided I not get beaten up at 
every comment, question, idea.

>    Kevin> It would be nice to see developments happen in the MM
>    Kevin> project, but ultimately another project may be required to
>    Kevin> make certain things happen.
>
>Oh, it probably will end up being another project, and it'll get to
>something merely useful in about the same effort and time that would
>have taken the Mailman project to excellence.  We've seen that happen
>often enough.  :-(
>  
>

I'd prefer it not be another project. Which is why I'm hoping for MM3 
success. So aside from my initial, poorly-crafted message, which has 
obvioulsy hit a raw nerve, are we really at odds when all is said and done?

- Kevin