Markos Chandras schrieb:
> On 08/14/2011 02:07 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>> Markos Chandras schrieb:
>>> On 08/14/2011 01:15 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>>>> Markos Chandras schrieb:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>> This is the first of the items I would like to discuss for the
>>>>> next Council agenda (or a later one).
>>>>> Some time ago, few people proposed to have Council appointed
>>>>> leaders for QA and DevRel.
>>>> My first question: Why is your proposal restricted to QA and
>>> Cause I believe these teams are crucial to the continuity of
>>> Gentoo project.
>> How do you weight one project against another one? I see it the other
>> way round: QA and DevRel are only important, if there is some issue
>> not resolved otherwise. But many other projects are always important,
>> since they have to maintain things continuously. While the council
>> could still decide, if DevRel or QA are gone (they just take some
>> workload away), you wont be able to get the council to e.g. maintain
>> our infrastructure, ebuilds or docs.
> 1) If another project slacks, then bad luck for you. Just mask and
> remove the ebuilds ( see recent zope thread ). There is nothing we can
> do about that.
If QA or DevRel slacks, this causes even less work, since they dont even maintain ebuilds to mask
and remove. It may result in less QA fixes or less mediation between developers, but in any case,
where you need a decision, you could always call for the council. Those projects do just some
delegated work, which is of course nice, if it comes to the daily work and also, because it reduces
the work, that needs to be done by the council. But neither is unreplaceable and the decisions of
both teams can already be checked by the council, so i see no real requirement for additional
bureaucracy for those 2 specific teams.
Either you want to move more control to the council, then it should do the checks and votes for all
teams or you leave it like now, where the teams do decide themselves.
> 2) Infrastructure is a sensitive team, and does not deal with ebuild
> maintenance and portage directly.
And if infra slacks? Bad luck for you, just mask and remove the hardware? :-)
>>>>> I like the idea because this way the Council can ensure that
>>>>> the team is active or either force some activity in case the
>>>>> current leader slacks big time.
>>>> If there is noone active in a team, noone prevents other devs to
>>>> join the team and vote themselves for the lead. So even if there
>>>> is no activity, it should be no problem to get activity, if
>>>> someone is interested to do the work.
>>> Right now, you can't join any of these teams unless a lead approves
>>> you. Have a look at gentoo-qa ML.
>> Please re-read my lines. I talked about _noone being active_. The QA
>> team is not empty/inactive, neither is DevRel team empty/inactive, so
>> this does not apply to the current situation.
> Well, clearly we have a different definition for the word "active". If
> you think that QA is active then there is no reason for me to try to
> convince you for the opposite.
Maybe you should first tell me, how you define activity for QA (and DevRel)?
>>>> If the team is inactive and noone interested, the Council wont be
>>>> able to create any activity either, since they cannot force
>>>> anyone to do something.
>>> You can't just join a dead team and become a lead :). There are
>>> some bureaucracy procedures to follow.
>> You cant? who prevents you from doing so? And if there are just some
>> procedures to follow, this just means some initial activity/workload
>> to do so, but again: If the team is dead, who could prevent you from
>> joining it and then becoming the lead?
> Existing members, who claim to be active, may prevent you. Remember what
> happened last time Patrick tried to resurrect GMW, and all of a sudden,
> Joshua claimed that he can't do that because he wasn't the lead.
> Unless I misunderstand your definition for "dead" word. You mean empty
> project pages? Or just pages with 14 members and 0 commits/year?
I would see a project as "dead", if there is no activity at all, also there is a need for activity
(like open bugs for an ebuild, which never get processed or no newsletter sent out at all).
I dont mind about asking the council to decide, who can take over a dead project, if more than one
person wants to take it and those people dont get to a consensus.