Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Questions for Candidates (was: Questioning/Interviewing council nominees)

[hasufell]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 06/25/2013 09:11 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2013-06-25, o godz. 00:27:55 hasufell <hasufell@g.o>
> napisał(a):
>
>> On 06/24/2013 12:59 AM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
>>> The dev manual doesn't believe this is implicit nor without
>>> any consensus.  True, it doesn't ban you from adding a new
>>> eclass, but it doesn't say you can just go and randomly add new
>>> eclasses without discussion either.
>>
>> I know the devmanual quite well. The example in it's procedure
>> was a bit more complex than you are describing, so I don't see
>> how that adds anything.
>>
>> People agreed that the eclass is fine, but there was no real
>> consensus about the question whether we actually want an eclass
>> based solution. You can't have both, because it does not make
>> sense. At one point you have to decide, council did nothing to
>> aid in this heated (really heated) discussion.
>
> Wasn't there? I can think of the two people being really unhappy
> with it (guess why), a few more being unsure or indifferent. You
> can't get all the people to be happy.
>
> I'm really sorry that you're unhappy with the solution we've put
> our work into. But I'd really appreciate if you two stopped
> undermining it, 'spreading FUD' and accepted the fact that -- even
> if the eclass-based solution didn't get a 'real consensus' -- yours
> wouldn't get even that close to it.
>
> And I'm sad that you can't keep it professional. I'm doing my best
> to help you with multilib-portage. It's an out-of-tree project
> which is not officially supported, yet I hack the eclass to keep it
> working. And I don't get anything for it, really, just more
> blustering [dictionary translation, meaning may have been lost].
>
> That said, I don't know what the Council could or should do.
> Should the Council be responsible for reading discussions and
> grabbing whether there was a consensus or not? Or making one in the
> name of the whole community?
>
> Last but not least, I don't even know if there were *two*
> solutions proposed. It seems a bit like it's between *a working
> solution now*, and not doing anything and waiting till you get it
> anywhere near official acceptance. Note that the timeframe and
> willingness of people to work on it is an important point as well.
> And likeliness that everything breaks apart when people touch
> multilib.eclass.
>


I'm sorry but this is all somehow offtopic, since the questions were
directed to dberkholz and can be answered without discussing the
_example_.

Thanks.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRyVtwAAoJEFpvPKfnPDWzl8QH/0zfThFHJdjqSts5dSYoSFre
lqQEqUw/zpCv6xstG5WGXV1YSAhciTLIr7FNRHL5Hx0zKckG3tJo09sevW78ja1K
1WuLI21So8AEPpUFhT+jT8b6xoHr/tO0Jf/6THKygWQn/5WkjS/yFbR/3VKB9Mgk
Mx7pRxUeh3MX3seFuT9PtrW30YWeinqaVVmef7JcJNOZGMW69m5NbHWY4vnF1Ogy
I1P94pq3ce/UFJqKrpsDZnIR2marEhTMKv7VV8hcay2XaarYr32myTupYeLVDlAX
kpze8BbkvKJ2yYNjxO7GtEj5k7PV5K251xbKvugVNcPYQTt69U7dDcuVoa/gCEY=
=zqua
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----