Re: [gentoo-project] Council: Policy for Systemd units

[Tom Wijsman]

On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 02:44:50 +0430
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn <chithanh@g.o> wrote:

> Tom Wijsman schrieb:
>
> > Oh, and not to forget about X-openrc, X-cron, X-..., ... and so on.
>
> X-selinux if you want an example of what is currently in tree.

That's not the point, the point is that different approaches are used;
this leads to inconsistency that makes things harder for our users.

> > Putting the maintenance burden on users is the worst thing we can
> > do.
>
> Users have no extra maintenance burden in this case.

They do, because of the inconsistency they can't take a single action.

> Users have to make informed decisions, which is something they have
> to do all the time anyway when using Gentoo.

Irrelevant to the maintenance burden, it is not about not making
informed decisions but rather about not making them harder to apply.

> >> I believe QA has no authority to (functionally) change packages,
> >> although they can p.mask whatever they consider unacceptable.
> >
> > Define "unacceptable", maybe they'll mask the X-whatever packages
> > in the future because it has turned into a mess; such a mess we
> > can't easily migrate away from, because we first have to start
> > another 5 threads...
>
> IIRC, QA needs no formal justification for masking a package.

They do, otherwise they can't pursue their goal; if they don't define
quality and can't justify themselves, then what exactly do they assure?

> >> This is something I fundamentally do not agree with. Gentoo is not
> >> a team that works together.
> >
> > It's not like in a sports game, but we are people working together;
> > we may not pursue the same thing, but we should pursue what is best
> > for our users. Whatever way you go, the users will end up
> > experiencing it.
>
> You are free to pursue what you think is best for any particular group
> of users that you care about. Just don't expect anybody else to share
> that ambition.

They don't have to, because there is no reason for them to be bothered;
at least not in the sense of caring for any group of users.

> x11 team decided some time ago that we would not let proprietary
> drivers hinder the progress of X.org packages.

This is irrelevant, since optional files do not hinder progress.

> Would it be better for our users if we instead bent over to
> accommodate for the binary blobs from AMD, Intel (yes, Intel) and
> NVidia?

Yes, I don't see how this is a problem for the X11 team.

> Ubuntu for example thinks that this serves their users best,
> and I tend to agree. After all, it solves a lot of headache and
> confusion for blob users.

Agreed.

> However for all *I* care, blob users can go use Windows.

They don't have to, and using Gentoo as a means to bother users one
hates isn't really the right approach to go about it; that's careless.

> Other developers care more, and put a lot of effort into making the
> blobs palatable on Gentoo.

Glad they do.

> >> There is no set direction (or "stream").
> >
> > Then why do we have an about page documenting one? There is.
>
> You mean that page? http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/about.xml
> I don't see the words "direction" or "stream", nor anything similar
> mentioned there.

Why do the exact words have to be there. It being an about and
therefore it is sufficient to give a description of Gentoo.

"automatically ... for just about any ... need", I don't see how
"maintenance burden" is "automatically" and how "all *I* care" is
"any ... need"; that would be disrespectful to what Gentoo is.

In fact, if you want more exact words; a better read is

http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/philosophy.xml

which has "goal" & "philosophy", uses the word "should" several times,
"strive", "mission" and more. Are you going to ignore this as well?

> >> Gentoo is a collection of individuals which each work on a small
> >> part of it, and the interference in that is kept to the necessary
> >> minimum, mostly by Council enacted rules. I would be very unhappy
> >> if that were to change.
> >
> > You can't avoid interference, it is bound to happen sooner or later;
> > when it does, Council shouldn't be implied, but rather be the
> > exception.
> >
> > I would be very unhappy if Gentoo only ran on rules and silence;
> > these not only affect our developers, but even more also our users.
>
> Interference does happen, I did not claim otherwise.

You claimed it to be kept minimum; that's either silence or ignorance.

> If you disagree with another developer, you of course are entitled
> to complain loudly and try to convince him of your way.

This in not about developers agreeing, it is about our users agreeing.

Oh, and that philosophy link above, it has "user" all over the place...

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@g.o
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D