| 1 |
(Quoting Chris below, but actually replying to Alexandre) |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On 4/10/07, Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> Will this actually resolve any of the recent problems? |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
That's a good point, let's list them. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> Will this stop flame wars? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
This a mailing-list issue, no amount of restructuring will fix that. |
| 11 |
We now have the CoC and a splitting of -dev is planned to be discussed |
| 12 |
at next council meeting. So it surely doesn't look like nothing is |
| 13 |
being done about this. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> Will this cause people be nicer to each other? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
See above. In the end niceness needs fun, and fun needs niceness. All |
| 18 |
we need is to prime the pump. This requires an effort from everybody, |
| 19 |
but I'm confident we'll make it in the end. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> Will this give us more qualified developers? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Recruiters are working hard to get new, better people in. Again, |
| 24 |
structure has nothing to do with this. We may need more recruiters and |
| 25 |
a polishing of the recruiting procedures, but this is already being |
| 26 |
addressed. A new recuiters lead and the equizapp project are good |
| 27 |
examples of what is being done. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> Will this increase the quality of the tree? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
QA issue, here, and again they may need more people, better |
| 32 |
procedures, and maybe more power but it isn't a structure issue. |
| 33 |
Splitting projects (and thus people) even more than what they are |
| 34 |
today will only result in a QA nightmare, as it will be very difficult |
| 35 |
to maintain (or worse, to enforce) a suitable level of quality and |
| 36 |
consistency. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
> I think that the clique-like nature of many projects is part of the |
| 39 |
> problem. We already have too much of a "us versus them" mentality. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Right on. What we need is unity and coherence. We need to be facing |
| 42 |
issues together, not creating new needless ones. With Gentoo growing |
| 43 |
everyday it's certainly more and more difficult, but this is our |
| 44 |
challenge for today and tomorrow. Recent history shows we are a lot |
| 45 |
better with technical issues than with human relations so I suspect |
| 46 |
we'll struggle quite a bit along the way. Btw, this being a social |
| 47 |
issue, a structure change won't do anything to it. But I'm sure we'll |
| 48 |
make it simply because we have too. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
> What, exactly, is your proposal supposed to actually accomplish? |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
With all the respect due to you and the effort you put into writing |
| 53 |
this proposal, I'd be tempted to answer: "apply a cataplasm on a |
| 54 |
wooden leg" (you surely know this old french saying). I've seen this |
| 55 |
"let's restructure, it'll solve it all" thing too many times in real |
| 56 |
life, and the only effect was always to delay the actual resolution of |
| 57 |
the problems, and lose valuable energy and people on the way. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
The bottom line is that we already have solutions for most of the |
| 60 |
problems we are facing, and some are already being implemented. All we |
| 61 |
need is to continue working on what's left to do, wait for the first |
| 62 |
results, and apply corrections if necessary. We shouldn't expect our |
| 63 |
actions to have immediate effect and problems be solved overnight. |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
However, if we have a structure problem I'm all for trying to address |
| 66 |
it. But first I'll need to hear what it is exactly. |
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
Denis. |
| 69 |
-- |
| 70 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives