List Archive: gentoo-nfp
Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.c.f. bug 424647
First off, I'd like to say that I think we're actually mostly in
agreement, but maybe talking past each other slightly.
Alistair Bush wrote:
>> No argument there. But keep in mind that the devs should drive the
>> rules - not the other way around.
> Not sure I really understand this. When you refer to dev's do you mean
> all dev's individually or devs that are represented by say the Council?
> Also how would rules drive a dev?
I guess I'm referring to both in a sense. The purpose of rules is to
make Gentoo work well - they don't exist for their own sake. I guess
I'm trying to advocate being pragmatic with regard to rules. If an
overwhelming majority of devs want something to happen, it should happen
- we shouldn't delay decisions by months to hold elections/etc. On the
other hand, I do agree with you that we don't want to be so loose that
we just presume to know the desires of the devs without bothering to ask
them if a matter is sufficiently important.
> While I understand the point I have to ask, do the Foundation and
> Council really have different Constituencies? It isn't like one is dev
> only and the other is open to anybody. Any differences between the 2
> Constituencies are minor at worse.
Currently they are essentially the same. However, the reason I bring
this up is that there is some debate over whether the foundation
membership should be substantially expanded beyond just gentoo devs
(possibly including end-users, or those willing to pay a membership fee
of some sort). These kinds of situations could lead to the sorts of
conflicts I'd like to avoid, as now you have two boards with different
agendas in charge of aspects of the same project.
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list