Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The request to abolish games team policy

[Sergey Popov]

09.07.2014 03:08, hasufell пишет:
> Pacho Ramos:
>>
>> What kind of games packages does he want to maintain in a "strictly"
>> way? Maybe one way to cooperate would be to have two herds:
>> - games-base (or similar) -> the more "stricter" and the one Mr_Bones
>> would likely still prefer to handle himself. It would take care of
>> central libs related with games
>> - games-extra (or...) -> a bit less strict in terms of accepting other
>> team members or similar.
>>
>
> I don't see how that is a solution. Mr_Bones_ is collaborative if you
> bother him long enough on IRC. That's not the thing.
>
> I meant that there is no _team_. And there seems to be very little
> interest to improve that.
>
> After all, vapier is the lead. And the lead is responsible for managing
> the team.
>
> I could make a list of things that didn't get much attention from him:
> * joining requests
> * review requests for non-trivial libraries like SDL2
> * review requests for games.eclass changes
> * review request for games-bin.eclass
> * RFC about an official games overlay
> * growing number of games overlays which means people stopped caring to
> contribute via bugzilla (yes, that's a problem the project has to fix)
> * growing number of developers who are uninterested to work with the
> team, probably because of lack of communication (a single person on IRC
> is not enough, mails to games@ are widely ignored)
> ...
>
> Vapier responds when he feels like it, when something catches his
> attention. But he doesn't follow games stuff on a regular basis anymore,
> probably because his focus has shifted. And that happens, sure.
>
> Therefor I'm not really interested in decisive council intervention
> here. We already did that and it failed, IMO.
>
> But I'd appreciate if the games project can:
> * reconsider who currently has the time and capacity to be an
> appropriate lead
> * make the team more open to collaboration from devs
> * make the team more open to collaboration from users (e.g. via an
> official games overlay on github... bugzilla sucks)
> * respond to joining requests
> * discuss possible solutions to known eclass problems openly
>
> If they miss the opportunity to improve these things, then we will
> likely see that more people will start to ignore the games project. And
> that's an even worse situation.
>
> Anyway, this thread certainly has several points. One is just the
> eclass, the other is the project behind it. I'd suggest to focus on the
> latter first, maybe the former will be easier to fix then instead of
> forcing anarchy-rage by council decision or something like that.
>

While i do not agree with some summary, that you pointed here, it does
not really matter, because the most of your discussed things is really true.

I was the one, who tried to join to Games team(it was around 1,5 years
ago). And i have failed to get any answer from vapier.

But, honesly, i can not see problem in this. We have similar problem in
ARM team, which was fixed by electing new leads by those, who really did
most of ARM stuff AND actively responds on e-mails. And yes, previous
lead was vapier.

I do not want to say that vapier is not doing anything, it would be
terrible lie.

But project lead should actively responds to the requests. no matter how
big his contribution is in terms of code/ebuilds/etc. If it does not
reply, the whole progress can be stopped: if there is no way to join the
project without lead approval(and lead does not responding) - we have no
new manpower. Older developers has been retired and still no new manpower.

And then - project dies. Let's try to save Gentoo Games from this!

-- 
Best regards, Sergey Popov
Gentoo developer
Gentoo Desktop-effects project lead
Gentoo Qt project lead
Gentoo Proxy maintainers project lead