| 1 |
On 3/2/07, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@×××××××.org> wrote: |
| 2 |
> So, er, to whom does this deadline apply then, if not the people |
| 3 |
> writing PMS? |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
I have no clue. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
PMS is not a Gentoo project, so they can't impose a deadline on you. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I don't think PMS is deserving of the council's time, as it is not an |
| 10 |
specification aimed at interoperability, but is a spec for a |
| 11 |
non-Gentoo project. The fact that it uses Portage as inspiration for |
| 12 |
its overall design, and is aiming to be compatible with Portage is |
| 13 |
irrelevant. In my opinion, it falls outside both the council's area of |
| 14 |
influence *and* intended focus. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I believe that Paludis should be treated like any other upstream |
| 17 |
project. As such, I don't think the council should spend much time |
| 18 |
thinking about Paludis, and we should also not spend a |
| 19 |
disproportionate amount of time discussing its design on our mailing |
| 20 |
lists. If anyone is interested in Paludis cross-compatibility, they |
| 21 |
can join Paludis lists or irc channels and discuss this with Paludis |
| 22 |
developers on these lists (in my opinion.) I think there has been way |
| 23 |
too much blurring of these boundaries as well - partly your fault. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I agree with Ciaran that the mention of "PMS: deadlines and interested |
| 26 |
parties" in the Council agenda trancends the actual authority of the |
| 27 |
Gentoo Council and should be reconsidered or at least massively |
| 28 |
clarified so we can understand why it is relevant for the Council to |
| 29 |
be discussing in the first place. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-Daniel |
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives