Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Alec Warner <antarus@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 10:02:29
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting by Ciaran McCreesh
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 >
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.
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...
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.
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.
58 -Alec
60 --
61 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@×××××××.org>
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting Stephen Bennett <spb@g.o>