On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 22:29:39 +0200
Christian Faulhammer <fauli@g.o> wrote:
> > Which groups who would like to be able to contribute currently feel
> > that they can't, why do they feel that and why haven't they said so?
> 
>  For example people from the other package managers apart from
> Paludis.

Zac's said he's not particularly interested in the deciding upon new
features part, and despite that there was considerable Portage
influence upon all three new EAPIs. The Pkgcore people haven't tried
pushing for anything as far as I know. The option's there for them, but
they haven't expressed any interest.

Incidentally, less than half of the things in EAPI 3 were of an origin
that could even remotely be considered Paludisish...

> What we need is a more straight forward way for new
> features...yes, some measures are already being worked out, but there
> is still work to do.

Unfortunately much of the complexity comes from the constraints we're
forced to work with...

> > Really, the only big issues we've had with EAPI work are getting
> > Portage support and working around a Council that wants to both
> > micro-manage every last detail of every last feature and only put in
> > an hour of work every two weeks.
> 
>  Discussion of EAPI features took place on the -dev mailing list
> involving council members, so one hour every two weeks is quite
> exaggerated.

Sure, some of the old Council were extremely helpful in providing
opinions beforehand, in doing the prep work before meetings and in not
springing things at the last second. Others insisted upon not reading
what they were asked to vote upon before the meeting (or even before
voting upon it), and then raising queries, objections and alternatives
that were either already addressed, not at all relevant or obviously
unworkable. That's what dragged the process out for so long.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh