| 1 |
> On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 02:12:48 -0700 "Daniel Robbins" |
| 2 |
> <drobbins.daniel@×××××.com> wrote |
| 3 |
>> Right now, you're effectively doing an end-run around the entire |
| 4 |
>> Gentoo management structure. Fortunately for you, it doesn't look like |
| 5 |
>> anyone cares. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Not really. We're working on a document, as requested by the Gentoo |
| 8 |
> management structure, and when it's at a good enough state that we're |
| 9 |
> ready to have it discussed, it will be opened up for comments by Gentoo |
| 10 |
> developers, and once they're satisfied it will be submitted to the |
| 11 |
> Gentoo management structure for approval or otherwise. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> This is fairly standard practice... |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> What is not standard is all the 'input' from third parties who don't |
| 16 |
> know what PMS is, who is working on it, what its goals are or what it |
| 17 |
> says. I get the impression that a lot of this comes about merely |
| 18 |
> because a few people who don't have anything better to do see certain |
| 19 |
> names associated with it and decide to go on the attack -- knowledge of |
| 20 |
> the topic at hand is considered largely irrelevant... |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
So you are saying you cannot see Daniel's point of view at all? That |
| 24 |
Gentoo should perhaps have input on a specification whose goal is to |
| 25 |
essentially define what a Gentoo Package Manager should be? Because right |
| 26 |
now the input is very limited. Gentoo developers are working on it, the |
| 27 |
council can see it, but other interested parties cannot. He sees that as |
| 28 |
a problem. I tend to disagree with his point of view in this case; but I |
| 29 |
can at least see where he is coming from and the point he is trying to |
| 30 |
make. Some people want transparency in the process. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
>> Really, I find this weird and ambiguous and you should probably be |
| 33 |
>> reinstated as a dev or be bumped off of PMS, which should be managed |
| 34 |
>> by Gentoo developers only. |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> Why does it matter whether it's written by Gentoo developers? What |
| 37 |
> matters is that it's written by people who know what they're talking |
| 38 |
> about and who can write reasonably decent technical material, and as the |
| 39 |
> primary author of the devmanual, a whole load of ebuilds, several |
| 40 |
> eclasses and of the only fully independent reimplementation of ebuild |
| 41 |
> (Pkgcore is in parts based upon Portage code -- whether or not this is |
| 42 |
> a good thing is irrelevant to this discussion), I'd say I qualify in |
| 43 |
> that area... |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Because it is difficult to determine 'people who know what they are |
| 46 |
talking about'. I would say Brian Harring is one of those, but I have a |
| 47 |
feeling you would disagree with me. All I really know is that I am not |
| 48 |
one of those people. I think this is once again part of Daniel's point. |
| 49 |
Interested parties should be able to collaborate (even if it's in a |
| 50 |
private repo to keep prying eyes away). But you are basically turning |
| 51 |
away a portion of interested parties. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
I can see why he thinks this is a bad approach. As I said; I personally |
| 54 |
don't care. I trust the council will take a good approach when PMS is |
| 55 |
ready for peer review. But at the same time I can't just blatantly |
| 56 |
discard Daniel's ideas as hogwash because I can understand his position. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
-Alec |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
-- |
| 61 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives