| 1 |
Matthew Marlowe wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> 1) enterprise devs form their own mailing list and/or herd and spend the next several |
| 4 |
> weeks attempting to come up with a consensus on a GLEP that might realistically |
| 5 |
> address their needs. There is no need for the details to be worked out on the -dev |
| 6 |
> ml. Once a consensus is reached, it can be proposed and discussed on -dev like |
| 7 |
> all other GLEPS. Note, that I think this thread can be mined for a rather comprehensive |
| 8 |
> list of issues that would need to be addressed by the GLEP. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
This has already happened in the past. We got to a point, and then |
| 11 |
people lost interest/got busy. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> 2) Other devs should probably realize that this isnt a one way street. Enterprise devs |
| 14 |
> have contributed to many other areas of gentoo and if they are dissatisfied it might impact |
| 15 |
> other areas of gentoo development. Furthermore, as the gentoo foundation is a rather |
| 16 |
> cash poor organization, enterprise development might be a way to bring in badly needed |
| 17 |
> funds without compromising our principles or greatly increasing the overall developer |
| 18 |
> workload. These issues would have to be addressed by the GLEP, but this isnt an issue |
| 19 |
> that only impacts enterprise devs. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I can't tell you how many times this topic has come up between -dev and |
| 22 |
-server (at least dozen or so). And EVERY time its come up, everyone |
| 23 |
decided to put their $0.02 in and so we have 100 different ways to |
| 24 |
accomplish something. History will repeat itself, it tends to do that. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> 3) It might be the consensus that there is no solution here. We should all be willing to face |
| 27 |
> that and be willing to take the consequences if it is true. Either way, the enterprise support |
| 28 |
> aspect has been a significant source of confusion and we need to get a clear and fair |
| 29 |
> resolution determined and communicated to the entire gentoo community within the next |
| 30 |
> few months. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
The problem I foresee is that nobody will be able to decide on a final |
| 33 |
implementation that makes everyone happy. Everyone will want their |
| 34 |
method to be used and it'll get no where. That's kind of why I think an |
| 35 |
outside project that has its own set of goals and management will |
| 36 |
accomplish more of the outcome we need. Sure, we can make another TLPish |
| 37 |
thing for server, but we'll end up waiting for months while people |
| 38 |
decide on the GLEP(s) that it may have to achieve to finish it properly. |
| 39 |
I'd hate to see such an outside project alienate itself from Gentoo, |
| 40 |
rather they could offer their patches/fixes in return. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
>From what I can see, Gentoo itself is really moving towards a premiere |
| 43 |
desktop OS. Most of the goals/ideals for having a desktop ideals are |
| 44 |
totally different than a server based one. I feel that both sides will |
| 45 |
have too many conflicting things that will hamper development. By doing |
| 46 |
an outside project, we can define things in portage/other areas that |
| 47 |
won't break things for the general gentoo project. They could even |
| 48 |
'start from scratch' and possibly fix the legacy issues right off. It |
| 49 |
gives the enterprise group the flexibility of doing whatever they need |
| 50 |
to do without the backlash of everyone else. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
Just my thoughts on the whole situation. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
-- |
| 55 |
Lance Albertson <ramereth@g.o> |
| 56 |
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
--- |
| 59 |
GPG Public Key: <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc> |
| 60 |
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1 4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742 |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
ramereth/irc.freenode.net |
Archives