1 |
On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 07:50:27 -0400 |
2 |
Ned Ludd <solar@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> Keeping it simple... |
5 |
> |
6 |
> If it's hosted on gentoo infrastructure it's official. |
7 |
> If it's hosted on gentooexp.org/SF/Non infra then it's not official. |
8 |
|
9 |
I think this is the best way to define it. Anything on Gentoo |
10 |
infrastructure has to have broad support from the Gentoo community. |
11 |
Anything elsewhere can do whatever it wants. |
12 |
|
13 |
We could take a leaf from the GNU book, and register nongentoo.org if |
14 |
infra wish to host stuff that is not official (c.f. savannah.gnu.org vs |
15 |
savannah.nongnu.org). Then sunrise could go on overlays.nongentoo.org |
16 |
|
17 |
Official means supported, however supported does not necessarily mean |
18 |
official. Just because some people support something doesn't make it |
19 |
"official". For example, if a project is official, then it's not |
20 |
acceptable for devs to just ignore a problem related to the |
21 |
project in stuff that isn't part of the project (at the very |
22 |
least the problem should be referred to the project). |
23 |
|
24 |
What I'm getting at is that "officialness" can be thought of in terms |
25 |
of the effects it has, "how does the way something official is dealt |
26 |
with differ from something unofficial?". My take is that official stuff |
27 |
is something that all devs accept some level of responsibility for. |
28 |
Thus official stuff is supported by the dev community as a whole. If |
29 |
something isn't supported by the dev community as a whole, in that a |
30 |
reasonable portion of the dev community actively discourage it, then it |
31 |
shouldn't be official. Works both ways, of course - official projects |
32 |
need to make reasonable efforts not to cause pain for everyone else. |
33 |
|
34 |
> On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 10:32 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote: |
35 |
> > Hi, |
36 |
> > |
37 |
> > One of the issues that the o.g.o project has brought to a head is |
38 |
> > the definition of what is "official" and what is not "official" |
39 |
> > when it comes to Gentoo. The term is already being thrown about in |
40 |
> > the Project Sunrise thread; I'm sure it'll come up again in future. |
41 |
> > |
42 |
> > It's an issue I think we should discuss and find an agreement on. |
43 |
> > |
44 |
> > Personally, I think what makes something official or not is 100% |
45 |
> > down to who does it. I think something is official if it is done |
46 |
> > by the project (where a project matches the definition in the |
47 |
> > metastructure project) responsible for whatever we're applying the |
48 |
> > label "official" to, then that's all that matters. |
49 |
|
50 |
I think this delegates "officialness" too much. I don't think a |
51 |
project should encourage something that directly contadicts what is |
52 |
official in a broader sense. |
53 |
|
54 |
> > So (picking something entirely at random for an example), if the |
55 |
> > Java project had an overlay somewhere (say, on |
56 |
> > gentooexperimental.org), because it's their overlay, the overlay is |
57 |
> > "official". Doesn't matter where it is hosted - all that matters |
58 |
> > is that it is run by the Java project. |
59 |
|
60 |
My argument would be that the experimental overlay would not be |
61 |
official for Gentoo as a whole. For example, any problems caused by |
62 |
people using stuff from the experimental overlay (such that |
63 |
returning to the official tree would eliminate the problem) could be |
64 |
RESOLVED/INVALID. We come back to the same thing; how can anyone be |
65 |
expected to maintain stuff against a sea of unofficial overlays? |
66 |
|
67 |
> > Equally (because it is the hot topic of the moment), Project |
68 |
> > Sunrise's overlay would be "official" because they're a Gentoo |
69 |
> > project. The way to stop them being "official" is simply to have |
70 |
> > the Council pass a resolution to shut down the project. |
71 |
|
72 |
With regards sunrise, I think a good solution would be to start it as |
73 |
an unofficial project. If in the long term it proves acceptable to the |
74 |
community as a whole, it could become official. One thing that is a |
75 |
distasteful is the way sunrise is presented as a fait-accompli, |
76 |
when prior discussion on this list had clearly implied (to my mind |
77 |
at least) that overlays.g.o would not be used for such a thing. |
78 |
|
79 |
> > I think the other side of the term "official" is clarifying the |
80 |
> > scope of how far something can be "official". Using the Java |
81 |
> > project as an example again (sorry guys :), the Java team can put |
82 |
> > in place "official" policies and procedures for what their team |
83 |
> > does, but that doesn't make them mandatory for the whole Gentoo |
84 |
> > project. Other developers remain free to form competitive |
85 |
> > projects, and put their own "official" policies and procedures in |
86 |
> > place if they wish. |
87 |
> > |
88 |
> > (I hope I explained that last bit properly. What I'm trying to do |
89 |
> > is keep in mind the terms of the metastructure document, which |
90 |
> > explicitly allow for two or more teams to be competing with each |
91 |
> > other). |
92 |
|
93 |
This is about delegation, which is fine - however I don't think it's a |
94 |
good idea to have two conflicting official positions. With regards |
95 |
Gentoo-wide policy |
96 |
|
97 |
> > |
98 |
> > What are the alternatives? If a project's activities are not |
99 |
> > automatically "official", then who gets to decide, and how is that |
100 |
> > decision made? How can that decision be made fairly, without |
101 |
> > contradicting the metastructure, and without giving rise to any |
102 |
> > accusations of 'cabals'? |
103 |
> > |
104 |
> > Best regards, |
105 |
> > Stu |
106 |
|
107 |
|
108 |
-- |
109 |
Kevin F. Quinn |