| 1 |
On 3 June 2010 20:54, Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> There is a real problem with herds that have a single or no |
| 3 |
> maintainer, the former mainly because that could very well lead to |
| 4 |
> another case of the latter, and we should certainly address both |
| 5 |
> problems, but we should create as little as possible new problems in |
| 6 |
> the process. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Also, there are herds that have several members, but none of them is |
| 9 |
really active (games, most of the desktop-* herds, etc.). This also |
| 10 |
leads to users being discouraged because the bugs they file are left |
| 11 |
ignored. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
This needs a structural solution. I think we need a team to |
| 14 |
systematically look at open bugs and to notify the community of such |
| 15 |
problematic herds. I imagine this would be a QA subproject. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Then we also need some structure to redirect some dev love to these |
| 18 |
problematic areas. We need to advertise these needs more, to get |
| 19 |
trusted users to proxy-maintain. We need to streamline the recruitment |
| 20 |
process to make it easier for people who want to volunteer to become |
| 21 |
devs. And I could go on for a while. There are a lot of areas where |
| 22 |
Gentoo has a lot of room for improvement, and they all interlock. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I believe we need to formulate a vision of what we want Gentoo to be, |
| 25 |
and then develop strategies of how to get there. Having a team that |
| 26 |
systematically looks at the state of herds as well as open bugs is |
| 27 |
--in my opinion-- a crucial first step to adress some of the |
| 28 |
structural problems that have plagued Gentoo for years. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Cheers, |
| 32 |
Ben |
Archives