1 |
On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 18:42 -0400, Alec Warner wrote: |
2 |
> This whole thread is quite disappointing to me. Someone comes up with a |
3 |
> new way to use Gentoo; to make it a viable tool for a job; to make it |
4 |
> USEFUL. This is what we are about here (or were?). |
5 |
> |
6 |
> "Put another way, the Gentoo philosophy is to create better tools." |
7 |
> |
8 |
> -Daniel Robbins |
9 |
> Previous Chief Architect |
10 |
> |
11 |
> So unless that has changed and no one has updated the webpages... |
12 |
|
13 |
Here is my take on the issue, it's something I saw happen when Gentoo on |
14 |
Mac OSX was announced, again with Sunrise, and now with Seeds (also note |
15 |
I'm not making a value judgment about any of the aforementioned |
16 |
projects, I just note a similar progression of events). There are those |
17 |
among us (myself often included, and mostly because I had a hand in the |
18 |
way the OSX port was handled at the outset) that believe that you |
19 |
shouldn't announce things in the manner of "Gentoo is doing XYZ now." in |
20 |
public fora (lists, gwn whataveyou) without first talking internally to |
21 |
verify the viability of the project, it's impacts on other projects, |
22 |
potential points of collaboration etc. This also coming up with a |
23 |
rational reference implementation and a list of tools that you will |
24 |
need. Now I realize that this means that there is less public visibility |
25 |
for projects in their larval stage, which can mean less (new) hands |
26 |
helping to figure out the above, but it also means an informed set of |
27 |
peers and no surprises. |
28 |
|
29 |
I believe that what Ciaran (and others) have been trying to say with |
30 |
suggesting that a GLEP might have been worthwhile isn't so much the |
31 |
statement that this (or any of the other projects) necessarily *need* a |
32 |
GLEP per se, but the GLEP process itself can act as a method to hash out |
33 |
any issues *and* inform your peers. Maybe we just need something along |
34 |
the lines of a GLPP (Gentoo Linux Project Proposal) mechanism wherein |
35 |
the Council specifically does *not* need to approve the project, or for |
36 |
that matter be involved at all, but can, at their discretion, deny the |
37 |
project existence. The format of the proposal could follow that of the |
38 |
current GLEP structure, and it's entire purpose would be to foster peer |
39 |
review and to spread information. Once a general level of consensus, and |
40 |
not I specifically did not say a full consensus, is reached then the |
41 |
project can officially be "born". |
42 |
|
43 |
Hell we just recently went through the whole process of coming up with a |
44 |
good GLEP to disseminate news to our users and it seems that we have the |
45 |
same problem internally... |
46 |
|
47 |
A lot of it comes down to wording in my mind, and granted it is a bunch |
48 |
of semantic bull but words matter. For instance in Stuart's original |
49 |
e-mail (and I'm sorry to pick on you, just happens to be the topic at |
50 |
hand) the subject was "New project: Gentoo Seeds" and the first |
51 |
paragraph read "I've created a new project, called Gentoo Seeds [1]. |
52 |
The aim of the project is to create stage4 tarballs which can be used to |
53 |
'seed' new boxes with ready-built Gentoo solutions." A simple change to |
54 |
Subject: "New Project Proposal: Gentoo Seeds" with the first paragraph |
55 |
being "I'd like to create a new project, called Gentoo Seeds [1]. The |
56 |
aim of the project would be to create stage4 tarballs which can be used |
57 |
to 'seed' new boxes with ready-built Gentoo solutions. If you are |
58 |
interested in working on this type of project come by #foo or discuss it |
59 |
here. I will be sending all online discussions to the list so that the |
60 |
community can stay informed. Once we get a finalized plan we'll create |
61 |
an official project." It really comes down to understanding that once it |
62 |
is called a project it should already be known to be a good idea, and |
63 |
the whole community should have had time to think about it. |
64 |
|
65 |
In the court of public opinion there is a huge difference between saying |
66 |
"Gentoo has a project providing XYZ service." and "Gentoo is looking |
67 |
into the viability of providing XYZ service." Especially when it comes |
68 |
to the potential failure of that service. It looks *way* better to say |
69 |
"We found out that the project would not have been viable." or "We had |
70 |
to modify our idea in this way to make it viable." then causing what |
71 |
happened today. I'd also say that the *first* discussion of any new |
72 |
projects should happen on internal lists with the *first* round of |
73 |
comments coming from within the dev ranks. That way, if a project is |
74 |
particularly untenable mention of it won't ever have to be made public. |
75 |
If it is clear that the project just needs some shake out time then |
76 |
discussion could move to a public list for further scrutiny and |
77 |
community involvement. |
78 |
|
79 |
Again...all semantics...and a load of bull...but bull matters. |
80 |
|
81 |
--Dan |