| 1 |
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 7:44 AM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> (or hand me powers to remove people from ML :-) |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
That sounds like a great idea. We could create a code of conduct, and |
| 6 |
then designate individuals to enforce it. Maybe we should call them |
| 7 |
proctors: |
| 8 |
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/coc.xml |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
What could go wrong? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Seriously though, this debate like many others recently probably |
| 13 |
shouldn't be viewed as for-Gentoo and against-Gentoo. Lots of people |
| 14 |
care about Gentoo, we just don't always agree on what is best. In |
| 15 |
this case the issue is pragmatism vs idealism, and both have their |
| 16 |
place. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
What is important is that we go ahead and share our views, debate |
| 19 |
points within reason, don't obsess over getting in the last word, and |
| 20 |
then work together to support the decisions that get made. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
My two cents in this debate is that I'm willing to accept Ciaran's |
| 23 |
suggestion that Portage 2.2's approach has its limitations, but it is |
| 24 |
the best thing we have implemented now, and thus I'll take the 98% |
| 25 |
solution over the 20% solution (which is what we get if all we do is |
| 26 |
argue over how to get to 100%(. If somebody wants to write the code |
| 27 |
to get us from 98->100%, I'm sure we'll all be for it. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Rich |
Archives