1 |
On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 6:52 AM, Michael Palimaka <kensington@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> On 07/08/2014 07:45 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
3 |
>> |
4 |
>> 1. that the games team has authority over the actual maintainers |
5 |
>> on every game ebuild, |
6 |
>> |
7 |
> |
8 |
> Why is Council intervention needed to abolish these policies? They're |
9 |
> not binding. |
10 |
> As far as I know, the games team has no special status so like any other |
11 |
> project they can recommend whatever they want - nobody is obliged to |
12 |
> listen (I certainly don't). |
13 |
> |
14 |
|
15 |
Gentoo projects should probably be viewed as having more authority |
16 |
than random package maintainers, though not in any absolute sense. |
17 |
However, they should also generally allow anybody to join them, and |
18 |
must have an annual election of lead. The Games project hasn't been |
19 |
migrated to the Wiki and the page hasn't been touched since 2006, so |
20 |
I'm a bit skeptical of that (though for all I know they're active and |
21 |
the membership/lead just hasn't changed). To the extent that we give |
22 |
projects a preferential status with regard to authority/etc it really |
23 |
should only be to the extent that projects "uphold their side of the |
24 |
bargain" by following the rules. |
25 |
|
26 |
Bureaucracy aside, for something as broad as "Games" I think we should |
27 |
keep distro-level policy on the light side. I don't think that it |
28 |
makes sense to try to establish a security model that amounts to |
29 |
SELinux-light. Admins of multi-user systems have much better tools |
30 |
these days to control what happens on their systems. I don't have a |
31 |
problem with generally trying to follow FHS, but I don't see the need |
32 |
for debates over where kpat goes. |
33 |
|
34 |
But, that is my own personal two cents. I'm interested in what active |
35 |
members of the games project have to offer. |
36 |
|
37 |
Rich |