1 |
On Tue, 2006-01-03 at 18:19 +0100, Simon Stelling wrote: |
2 |
> My point is, either you have to generalize each project's goal to a real |
3 |
> triviality or you have to define a goal which doesn't match some |
4 |
> project's goals. Conclusion: Let it be. |
5 |
|
6 |
Maybe we are looking at this problem the wrong way. Instead of trying |
7 |
to have Gentoo be the distro, perhaps Gentoo can be thought of as a |
8 |
provider of infrastructure and tools to allow 'sub-distros' to flourish. |
9 |
|
10 |
THere are many projects which now are trying to pull Gentoo in many |
11 |
different directions, such as bianary distro vs. enterprise distro. If |
12 |
we remove "Gentoo as distro" from out thinking and replace it with |
13 |
"Gentoo as provider of tools and infrastucture", These two seemingly |
14 |
contradictory goals can each flourish in their own way. |
15 |
|
16 |
Haveing sub-distros, lack of a better term, is not new to Gentoo. |
17 |
Hardened has their own LiveCD, profile and tools. I feel this can be |
18 |
nurtured. Allowing the Binanary group to move in one direction, and |
19 |
'tweakers' in an other, and die-hard security people in yet another, |
20 |
while not severely conficting with each other. |
21 |
|
22 |
|
23 |
Maybe what we need is a clearer definition of what each herd does? I am |
24 |
considering writing a GLEP about this, having each herd answer three |
25 |
questions periodicly (say 6mths). |
26 |
- What do we want to do? |
27 |
- How are we going to get there? |
28 |
- How to we measure success? |
29 |
and /maybe/ add a section about current devs and AT/HTs. |
30 |
Just a thought. |
31 |
|
32 |
-- |
33 |
Lares Moreau <lares.moreau@×××××.com> | LRU: 400755 http://counter.li.org |
34 |
lares/irc.freenode.net | |
35 |
Gentoo x86 Arch Tester | ::0 Alberta, Canada |
36 |
Public Key: 0D46BB6E @ subkeys.pgp.net | Encrypted Mail Preferred |
37 |
Key fingerprint = 0CA3 E40D F897 7709 3628 C5D4 7D94 483E 0D46 BB6E |