| 1 |
On 23:57 Sat 17 Nov , Greg KH wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:02:19PM -0800, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 3 |
> > I'm unsure on what grounds you disapprove. People start (and abandon) |
| 4 |
> > projects often in Gentoo. Suddenly you dislike one such project and |
| 5 |
> > object to this practice? Certainly if we had to get some sort of |
| 6 |
> > Foundation consensus (for anything) nothing would happen. We can't |
| 7 |
> > even get more than 40% of foundation members to vote. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I object if this is seen as a "Gentoo blessed" fork of a community |
| 10 |
> project that is worked on by all other major Linux distros. That is the |
| 11 |
> type of decision that can be made by the Gentoo Council, which is fine, |
| 12 |
> but it sure would be nice if it were publicly stated, instead of having |
| 13 |
> to see it on the Gentoo github site instead. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> And if that is the decision of the council, I would expect the ability |
| 16 |
> to have some type of discussion about it, wouldn't you? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Sorry to follow up late but I feel like the critical point never made it |
| 19 |
clearly into this discussion. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
The key misunderstanding here seems to be that initiation of a "Gentoo |
| 22 |
project" means that the council explicitly supports it, because in most |
| 23 |
distributions there is no choice available to end users at this level of |
| 24 |
detail. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Instead, in Gentoo, the council-level decision typically happens when |
| 27 |
the *default* changes. Non-default or non-mandatory things are handled |
| 28 |
in a nearly anarchic, ad hoc manner, where anyone can do pretty much |
| 29 |
whatever they want as an official Gentoo project. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Thanks, |
| 33 |
Donnie |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Donnie Berkholz |
| 36 |
Council Member / Sr. Developer, Gentoo Linux <http://dberkholz.com> |
| 37 |
Analyst, RedMonk <http://redmonk.com/dberkholz/> |
Archives