1 |
On 3/3/07, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@×××××××.org> wrote: |
2 |
> Why is it a developer-only privilege? You just made that up. |
3 |
|
4 |
To co-lead a Gentoo project? You need to be a dev to do that. I |
5 |
couldn't join any projects even as a member until I became a dev, and |
6 |
I created the distro. You are effectively co-leading (likely leading) |
7 |
PMS as a non-dev - worse than that, as someone who has been explicitly |
8 |
removed from a dev role. |
9 |
|
10 |
> > Yet even those who are worthy of being called Gentoo developers don't |
11 |
> > enjoy the privileges that you are currently enjoying. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> That's their own fault... You'll also note that I'm far from the only |
14 |
> person who's chosen to take this route... |
15 |
|
16 |
No, they are doing the right thing, and you are doing the wrong thing. |
17 |
|
18 |
> Those things would be -core and, uh, nothing else... There's never been |
19 |
> any requirement that people contributing to Gentoo be Gentoo developers. |
20 |
|
21 |
Again, you're not just submitting a patch but architecting the |
22 |
strategic direction for package manager interoperability which has |
23 |
strategic implications for Gentoo, and is more than just a |
24 |
user-submitted "contribution." |
25 |
|
26 |
> You're also assuming that Gentoo is about fun -- nothing wrong with |
27 |
> that, but having fun does not give you or anyone else the right to |
28 |
> break the tree or screw up users' systems. Fun as a primary goal is |
29 |
> extremely unprofessional and inappropriate for projects where the |
30 |
> impact of breakages is so high. |
31 |
|
32 |
I never said fun was the primary goal, just the first of many goals - |
33 |
and is basic necessity for the long-term health of a volunteer-driven |
34 |
free software project. If it's not pleasant, then no one has the will |
35 |
to stick around and do the harder work that you speak of. |
36 |
|
37 |
Regards, |
38 |
|
39 |
Daniel |
40 |
-- |
41 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |