Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Agenda for Gentoo Council meeting on 2014-02-25

[hasufell]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Mart Raudsepp:
> On T, 2014-02-25 at 19:10 +0000, hasufell wrote:
>> Mart Raudsepp:
>>>
>>> We wrote this policy in the first place so that everyone can
>>> understand why we do things this way and we do not want anyone
>>> to mess with it without due explanation and justifications
>>> because in the end, we will be the ones (with other gtk based
>>> DE) maintaining this mess in tree.
>>>
>>
>> This is just a gnome team policy and not tree policy. A LOT of
>> people do things completely different and I did not get much
>> support from the gnome team to stop the mess.
>
> We do not have such an authority, while QA team believes it does,
> and I applaud such initiatives of consistency, however I severely
> question the process in which this has been undertaken. Driving the
> status quo of approaching this to complete opposite in a couple of
> weeks without due process to be seen which I would expect from such
> a longstanding issue.
>
>> See https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=420493
>>
>> I then complained to QA, because most people started to close
>> bugs as RESOLVED WONTFIX without good reason (including QA
>> members).
>>
>> I don't think this can be solved without a more definite answer
>> than "we recommend you do it this way", even if you rework your
>> team policy.
>
> We are suggesting to be part of a due process to come up with a
> properly discussed, agreed and with all use cases thought about and
> considered properly. At this point the conclusion of such a process
> would then end up as a QA or Council policy, that the maintainers
> of relevant things have been a part of forming as common courtesy
> and common sense (the maintainers should know what's going on and
> have good input to all sides of the story), and that we would then
> supposedly also follow without much of complaining.
>
> The previous mailing list discussions I found died down after they
> received replies from the Gnome team. For the recent discussions,
> we have been busy with actually maintaining one of the biggest
> desktop environments according to what we can in our limited time,
> and have not yet been able to fully digest and summarize all the
> issues that have come up in the latest (and previous) rounds of
> discussion. On the lack of such volunteering from someone, such as
> someone from the Gnome team who are otherwise preoccupied, I would
> expected some summarizing and bringing the discussion back on track
> by the QA team at that point, not run off to a vote that
> contradicts 10+ years of practice and leaves many many things
> unanswered, possibly changing the whole decision again soon after
> to address concerns as we have the time to (re)bring them up and
> insist on getting an answer, as you have tried the past year.
>
>

Ok, I'm fine with that approach, so I revoke my agenda item. Ofc it's
not my say if it still ends up there.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTDPbUAAoJEFpvPKfnPDWzcnYH/iHTrYFWSASug/vjXTyLYQ9o
TlRfAsU9AXa5qMFi/MSOU3mKBn+cnehm46DQ5MPnzW19/CfMA66uOEFdA9G3X6NF
3lTE9EHVbboTddrEvvSMG5lM5oF1Jt7/DDLCwu45mXvtjkYJNxy2wwP/s0ZcXi8z
nL+5htut41VCsceo9wOfVDBRtrpRMH2dfwhQv0zrNrnoz3rr1zgTYOuVzAJhntvW
CscbqtkZ8rSkjQWD9zI3HuTUjvaHJlAQIe/06EaT6oMYIVEUebPhRem5ic4P0H5F
lzBwBMIB2qhlA4hrHogGgy8P6Jvycr8Y48zYNz4g9L3HmoApafgfgKESIOnuV9A=
=EJad
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----