| 1 |
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 8:25 AM, Peter Stuge <peter@×××××.se> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 3 |
>> I suspect that trying to force it would basically end up putting |
| 4 |
>> the entire distro on hold until most of the current devs quit, |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> I think you're right. I also think those developers should quit right |
| 7 |
> here and now. I don't think they will. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
The thing is that if a bunch of devs want to create a review-only |
| 11 |
Gentoo fork they can just do it. The result would be about the same. |
| 12 |
Trying to force it on Gentoo would just result in most of the Gentoo |
| 13 |
devs changing the name and proceeding basically as it is, and Gentoo |
| 14 |
would just become another XFree86. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
The way you change an FOSS project is to influence the current |
| 17 |
contributions, or to make contributions of your own. Trying to order |
| 18 |
people around doesn't really change anything in the end. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Hence my suggestion to try something like this out in a project where |
| 21 |
there is interest. Build from success, and win people over. In the |
| 22 |
end the "hard" power of a body like the Council is just the power to |
| 23 |
halt progress, not create it. That power should be focused on |
| 24 |
situations where the "progress" is self-destructive. Obviously a body |
| 25 |
like the Council also has "soft" powers like leadership/etc, but that |
| 26 |
really isn't enough to just order change by fiat. Plus, we're all |
| 27 |
elected for our ability to generally represent the will of the |
| 28 |
developer community, so you shouldn't be too surprised when we don't |
| 29 |
try to push policies that most devs disagree with. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
In any case, to some extent the review workflow already exists on the |
| 32 |
proxy maintainer project. There is no limit to the number of packages |
| 33 |
they can maintain, or the number of reviewers they can have. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Rich |
Archives