| 1 |
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 05:37:42AM -0500, splite wrote: |
| 2 |
> > With QA and the growth of the project comes a management structure. That |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Any "project" has a management structure, by definition. If the present |
| 5 |
> structure can't keep up with growth, another possibility is to check the |
| 6 |
> growth. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
There, you've said it! As a gentoo user, the way I see things is that |
| 10 |
its are growing too fast and the current system and decision making |
| 11 |
processes can't really keep up. In particular, bug tracking and fixing |
| 12 |
and too many development ideas going there own direction. IMHO the |
| 13 |
present structure can't keep up with growth. We agree so much! |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
The trouble is, is that growth seems to be the aim of the general |
| 16 |
project. Witness Gentoo Games, Gentoo Embedded, Gentoo Hardened and |
| 17 |
general noise from the gentoo project - people want to grow. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Therefore, as checking growth is not posible and does not seem desired, |
| 20 |
some change is a necessity. OK, I'm not in favour at all of |
| 21 |
consensus voting, Debian style mis-management but there must be some |
| 22 |
suitable structure that allows a handle to be keept on the project while |
| 23 |
still allowing development freedom. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Dan |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives