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

[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.


Leio