Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting

[Daniel Robbins]

In the interests of not being accusatory/one-sided, please replace this phrase:

"- partly your fault"

with the phrase

"due to ambiguity on the part of Gentoo and Paludis"

That is what I meant anyway. I shouldn't have expressed it in such a
negative way. Sorry.

-Daniel

On 3/2/07, Daniel Robbins <drobbins.daniel@×××××.com> wrote:
> On 3/2/07, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@×××××××.org> wrote:
> > So, er, to whom does this deadline apply then, if not the people
> > writing PMS?
>
> I have no clue.
>
> PMS is not a Gentoo project, so they can't impose a deadline on you.
>
> I don't think PMS is deserving of the council's time, as it is not an
> specification aimed at interoperability, but is a spec for a
> non-Gentoo project. The fact that it uses Portage as inspiration for
> its overall design, and is aiming to be compatible with Portage is
> irrelevant. In my opinion, it falls outside both the council's area of
> influence *and* intended focus.
>
> I believe that Paludis should be treated like any other upstream
> project. As such, I don't think the council should spend much time
> thinking about Paludis, and we should also not spend a
> disproportionate amount of time discussing its design on our mailing
> lists. If anyone is interested in Paludis cross-compatibility, they
> can join Paludis lists or irc channels and discuss this with Paludis
> developers on these lists (in my opinion.) I think there has been way
> too much blurring of these boundaries as well - partly your fault.
>
> I agree with Ciaran that the mention of "PMS: deadlines and interested
> parties" in the Council agenda trancends the actual authority of the
> Gentoo Council and should be reconsidered or at least massively
> clarified so we can understand why it is relevant for the Council to
> be discussing in the first place.
>
> -Daniel
>
-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list