1 |
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 08:28:23PM +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote: |
2 |
> Personally I have only one issue that could be addressed. It concerns portage. |
3 |
> There are many features that portage will implement someday and that have |
4 |
> allready been identified. Many of those TODO's have been there a long time. |
5 |
> While I know that it is necessary to keep portage stable, and I know that |
6 |
> adding features is much work, I would like to know the status of those |
7 |
> features. |
8 |
|
9 |
Me too :) In our existing management structure, you'll see that carpaski is |
10 |
the operational manager for portage, and as such will be responsible for |
11 |
providing weekly updates on the status of his project, just like all |
12 |
managers will. These status updates will be publicly available and linked to |
13 |
on our Web site. You'll also see that I specifically listed a "package |
14 |
research" sub-project that will be involved in architecting new |
15 |
functionality for Portage. |
16 |
|
17 |
Also, if other projects or sub-projects need functionality in Portage, they |
18 |
can inform their respective top-level managers about these needed features. |
19 |
Then it's the the responsibility of that top-level manager to communicate these |
20 |
needs to carpaski at the top-level manager meeting, and coordinating with |
21 |
carpaski to find an agreeable and reasonable schedule for implementation. |
22 |
|
23 |
This is how it is intended to work for all projects that have specific needs |
24 |
from other projects. Your respective top-level manager should be your |
25 |
ombudsman and work to get needed features on the roadmap of other projects. |
26 |
|
27 |
I believe that this arrangement address all your concerns. Please let me |
28 |
know if that's not the case, and anyone is welcome to chime in if they see |
29 |
an opportunity to improve this process. |
30 |
|
31 |
Best Regards, |
32 |
|
33 |
-- |
34 |
Daniel Robbins |
35 |
Chief Architect, Gentoo Linux |
36 |
http://www.gentoo.org |