Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:32:34 -0400
> Andrew D Kirch <trelane@...> wrote:
>> We agree on very little, but one thing we do agree on is the quantity
>> of trolling that DOES occur on -dev when these issues are brought
>> up. Is there any method by which a discussion can be had on -PMS in
>> a smaller forum, and a proposal could thereby be brought to -dev in
>> several weeks agreed upon here, and subsequently submitted to the
>> Council? I'm hoping this will reduce the potential for trolling.
> That tends to be what happens anyway, and I strongly suspect we've
> already covered all the pros and cons of the proposal on this list that
> we're going to come up with (although there're probably some
> interesting viewpoints on the upgrade path that can be had from a
> wider audience). The wider consultation part is necessary, though, since
> I doubt anyone wants things that aren't a simple "there's only one side
> to this" to go from PMS to Council without them having had a good public
> airing first.
Agreed, but I'd like to have something more formal, and perhaps
someplace less loud than -dev for this.
> There're threads that end up working fine on gentoo-dev@, and there're
> threads where there's an endless supply of FUD posted to them. Things
> that tend to help make threads the former rather than the latter are:
> * The initial proposal, and any counter proposals, being clear and well
> defined, and not vague ideas that haven't been thought through. It's
> possible to screw things up for months just by replying "well I have
> an alternate proposal that involves frozbinating the glixnors", and
> then not telling anyone what that proposal is.
> * Arguments for or against a proposal being expressed clearly and in
> technical terms, rather than "warblgarbl".
I just mentally filter out such things.
> * Getting contributions only from people who understand the issue at
> hand. That one's the biggie, and I've not found any way of helping on
> that -- providing clear and detailed explanations of everything
> has only led to people not reading those explanations. Some people
> seem to be able to think that their opinions are relevant even if
> they're commenting on highly technical issues that they haven't taken
> the time to understand.
Opinions on the internet are like assholes, everyone has one, and some
smell more than others.
> * Where multiple options are available, having several clearly separate
> proposals rather than trying to lump everything into a single
> proposal that covers every option.
> The ultimate decision making process also hasn't helped. In the past
> the Council has worked on a policy of "if there're any unanswered
> questions, the proposal gets postponed", even if those questions are
> obviously nonsense and have already been addressed twenty times
> previously. This unfortunately means that the trolls can't simply be
I don't think you'll get an argument from me on the failures of Council
> Having said that, all it takes is for a couple of people to jump on a
> proposal they don't understand and start yelling that it will break
> their favourite toy, and at best the proposal then gets derailed for
> several months before sanity prevails.
This is what I'm trying to avoid. If we're going to propose something,
I'd rather hash it out here and then submit it to dev than to start a
-dev thread with "so I had this idea... maybe we could change EAPI-4 to