| 1 |
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 11:50:06AM +0100, Daniel Jaeggi wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 05:37:42AM -0500, splite wrote: |
| 3 |
> > > With QA and the growth of the project comes a management structure. That |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > Any "project" has a management structure, by definition. If the present |
| 6 |
> > structure can't keep up with growth, another possibility is to check the |
| 7 |
> > growth. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> There, you've said it! As a gentoo user, the way I see things is that |
| 11 |
> its are growing too fast and the current system and decision making |
| 12 |
> processes can't really keep up. In particular, bug tracking and fixing |
| 13 |
> and too many development ideas going there own direction. IMHO the |
| 14 |
> present structure can't keep up with growth. We agree so much! |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> The trouble is, is that growth seems to be the aim of the general |
| 17 |
> project. Witness Gentoo Games, Gentoo Embedded, Gentoo Hardened and |
| 18 |
> general noise from the gentoo project - people want to grow. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Therefore, as checking growth is not posible and does not seem desired, |
| 21 |
> some change is a necessity. OK, I'm not in favour at all of |
| 22 |
> consensus voting, Debian style mis-management but there must be some |
| 23 |
> suitable structure that allows a handle to be keept on the project while |
| 24 |
> still allowing development freedom. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I, personally, feel that the existing structure accomplishes that. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Additionally, the existing structure has only been in place for |
| 30 |
something like three weeks - maybe we should wait and see what kinds of |
| 31 |
improvements come from that before doing anything extreme. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Jon Portnoy |
| 36 |
avenj/irc.freenode.net |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives