[Cryptech Core] process violation!

[Leif Johansson]

> 14 jul 2015 kl. 15:53 skrev Peter Stuge <peter at stuge.se>:
> 
> Leif Johansson wrote:
>>> The protocol must be changed if the project is incapable of following it.
> 
> Does anyone actually disagree with this?

Not in principle but i think you are making a hen-house out of a feather.

> 
> 
>>> I received some very good advice once; to not apologize. Think about it.
>> 
>> not sure if you were arguing for or against, left or right, or up or
>> down :-)
> 
> I'll explain it then. An apology is neither adequate nor useful, so
> think ahead instead, so that no apology is needed.
> 
> 
>> mistakes happen and as mistakes go this was not a very big one imo
> 
> I don't think that attitude helps the project's credibility.
> 
> Protocol and processes exist to minimize errors. They can't catch all
> errors, but many, maybe even most.

have we erred before then when applying this process?

> 
> I don't think different breaches of protocol/process have different
> severity.
> 
> I am not even remotely suggesting that including Heather (hi!) in the
> core group is a mistake - I have no opinion about that - and I wish
> that everyone understands that this is not the issue at all.

you might have led with that :-)

> 
> 
>> lets move on
> 
> Again not helpful for project credibility. To me this sounds like you
> are suggesting that it doesn't matter that protocol/process was ignored
> and things can continue as they were. I disagree with that. As I wrote,
> I think the project needs to re-evaluate what promises it is capable
> of making, and be open about that internally as well as externally.

my view is that this can wait until there is evidence of process failure. one bird does not make a summer (or something to that effect)


> 
> 
>>>> crunch time
>>> 
>>> That's even more ridiculous. If the project can not sustain itself
>>> without "crunch time before make-or-break deadline" then I think
>> 
>> fwiw the project was never meant to be a long-term self-sustaining
>> thing and was meant to go away as a concerted effort after 2-3 years
> 
> 2-3 years is unrealistic, but regardless of project runtime I think
> it's important for the project to be sustainable. Not in the sense
> that it will be able to sell what it produces - but in the sense that
> sufficient funding is secured to achieve what was originally planned.
> With sufficient funding there's no need for crunch time, so if there's
> crunch time, then the project is underfunded. :\
> 
> 
>> to me it makes perfect sense for a start-up to have multiple crunch times
> 
> If a project is underfunded then I think it's very important not to
> push responsibility onto individuals (neither in the funding nor in
> the engineering departments!) but for the project as a whole to own
> the problem, and restructure itself so that it can either continue in
> a different shape, or be terminated because the original goal turned
> out too difficult to achieve.
> 
> 
> That said - let's stay with the more important topic. There are no
> good reasons to ignore protocol/process, but "crunch time" is a
> particularly reason because it is very easy to make a project
> constantly crunch, and then protocol/process is suddenly constantly
> less important - in fact, protocol/process becomes irrelevant.
> 
> At the very least, the project needs to be honest with itself about
> what it can and can not do and which protocol/process it can and
> can not stick to and also communicate that outwards, to uphold credibility.
> 
> 
> //Peter
> _______________________________________________
> Core mailing list
> Core at cryptech.is
> https://lists.cryptech.is/listinfo/core