Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Public Relations, was: Re: [gentoo-core] proposal: make gentoo-core publicly read-only

[Alastair Tse]

On Wed, 2003-07-02 at 12:35, Stewart Honsberger wrote:
> Reading over that bug, I find myself rather dissapointed. The system
> seems to have failed you, and that sucks. I also disagree with many of
> the sentiments expressed in the comments and feel that an application
> such as that could/would be used by a nontrivial number of people;
> certainly enough to warrant inclusion in the tree.

Considering the scope and the amount of pacakges that gnome@g.o
currently oversees (200+), we (gnome@g.o) have to prioritise which
packages are added. Now, if a developer has interest in that particular
package and is willing to maintain it, then by all means it is up to
that developer :)

Thinking more about it, there probably should be some sort of bug fixing
day or new ebuild fixing day once a month or something where a list of
all the outstanding ebuilds are listed and then devs who are interested
in them should assign themselves to them and/or comment on what needs to
be improved. But without a real proposal or implementation, this would
just be something that I just mindlessly blurted out off the top of my
head.

> ebuilds as you appear to be. We don't need to turn away quality
> contributions.

Definitely. 

> via electronic communication. The likes of SuSE, RedHat et al. have
> physical space in which to hold meetings of the board and the core

While I don't agree that we should use other distros as argument points
for not opening up -core, I'd just like to bring up that debian also has
private lists for developers only. 

Cheers,
-- 
Alastair 'liquidx' Tse
 >> Gentoo Developer
 >> http://www.liquidx.net/ | http://cvs.gentoo.org/~liquidx/
 >> GPG Key : http://cvs.gentoo.org/~liquidx/liquidx_gentoo_org.asc
 >> FingerPrint : 579A 9B0E 43E8 0E40 EE93  BB1C 38CE 1C7B 3907 14F6