I doubt the solution will be a good one when the problem isn't more palpable. To me it looks like a bureaucratic burden which might solve a problem that might appear in about a year if Pike really catches on. And I don't see any reason why that bureaucracy must be in place well beforehand, i.e. that we prior to it would make mistakes that have to be corrected afterwards.
The overall naming in the core library will always be a global issue; it won't be a good structure otherwise. If the activity within certain areas become big enough it's just a matter of starting another forum where interested parties take part.
As for bringing developers closer to managers, I think it's mostly a matter of appointing managers for specific aspects, e.g. a graphics guy, a network guy etc, that take the responsibility to respond to and coordinate the interest in their respective areas. I don't think there's much need to connect those areas to parts of the module tree in a formal way.
/ Martin Stjernholm, Roxen IS
Previous text:
2003-01-26 20:18: Subject: Re: Bz2
Yes, you are right. I'd like to have the solution before the problem arises. It's not a solution looking for a problem, its a solution to avoid the problem.
If I understood you reasoning you wanted to make name management of major parts of the tree a "global activity", and to reduce noise for everyone letting users put modules effortlessly in a subtree.
I want to have management of the core parts of the tree as a collective activity for the core developers and reducing noise by outsourcing management of subtrees with much activity/developer interest. This would hopefully bring committers closer to code managers that knows and cares about the application area at hand.
/ Martin Nilsson (Åskblod)