| 1 |
В Вск, 15/06/2008 в 15:50 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh пишет: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 18:42:28 +0400 |
| 3 |
> Peter Volkov <pva@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > By formalizing I mean the following: call for and form PMS team. Team |
| 5 |
> > must represent portage developers and could paludis and pkgcore. All |
| 6 |
> > suggestions for PMS draft must go into bugzilla and after patch for |
| 7 |
> > PMS is created PMS team members should vote on that patch. After |
| 8 |
> > voting patch is applied or discarded. Until there are open bugs in |
| 9 |
> > bugzilla council can not approve PMS. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> How would a voting system be better than the current "if anyone doesn't |
| 12 |
> like it, don't commit it until whatever they don't like is fixed" |
| 13 |
> process? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Voting makes the process converging. It helps to avoid same arguments in |
| 16 |
the next cycle of discussions. If you failed to find arguments and |
| 17 |
convince majority - you have to live with decision which you don't agree |
| 18 |
with. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> Do you think that the differences between the proportion of patches |
| 21 |
> from 'Paludis people' that are accepted or rejected and the proportion |
| 22 |
> of patches from 'Portage people' or 'Pkgcore people' indicates a |
| 23 |
> problem? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
No. Part of the problem is that working group on PMS does not include |
| 26 |
developers from other PMs. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> В Вск, 15/06/2008 в 16:04 +0100, David Leverton пишет: |
| 29 |
> zmedico is on the alias, although he seems to have been focussing on |
| 30 |
> working on Portage itself. genone, from what I've seen, seems to be |
| 31 |
> indifferent at best to the idea of PMS. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
But without their voice I don't see how council could approve PMS. As it |
| 34 |
was told in this thread at least some parts of PMS does not reflect the |
| 35 |
things portage works. Thus by silence it's not possible to assume that |
| 36 |
they agree with PMS. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
> I'm curious as to why you think the actively contributing members of the PMS |
| 39 |
> team aren't acting in Gentoo's interests, though. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Actually I don't think so. That's why I don't want to dismiss PMS and |
| 42 |
I'm looking how to make it "official". But as I see asking council |
| 43 |
another time to discuss PMS does not makes it official... So we should |
| 44 |
look for other ways to get from situation. Basically what was suggested |
| 45 |
is to put in one team all three PM developers, but taking into account |
| 46 |
that sometimes it's hard for them to discuss things - voting should make |
| 47 |
this working group to proceed. And yes, without portage developers in |
| 48 |
PMS team (I even think portage developers should have 50% of voices in |
| 49 |
voting and council to resolve moot situations) I don't think Gentoo |
| 50 |
could call final PMS "official". The reasoning is simple - how we can |
| 51 |
call PMS "official" if none of Gentoo portage gurus voiced to support |
| 52 |
it? And if portage developers are not interested in PMS I don't think |
| 53 |
council could do something besides trying to convince them or until new |
| 54 |
portage developer arise and fix/approve PMS... You know the rules: want |
| 55 |
to change things happen in Gentoo - became active developer. In this |
| 56 |
case you have to became active portage developer. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
-- |
| 59 |
Peter. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
-- |
| 62 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives