| 1 |
Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> >> Nor should Gentoo projects suddenly change what they are because |
| 3 |
> >> "the internet" doesn't understand them. That's a ridiculous basis |
| 4 |
> >> for any change. |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > It doesn't always matter what others think, but it is always worth |
| 7 |
> > considering. It matters a lot for how one is understood. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Sure, but what's the alternative? GLEP-39 was written precisely |
| 10 |
> because a more top-down system wasn't really working well. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I'm thinking that perhaps sunrise projects could be useful. It would |
| 13 |
be up to each developer if they choose to start their project as a |
| 14 |
"normal" project, or as a sunrise project. It could just as well be |
| 15 |
called bootstrap or experimental or one of many other fine names. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
There would not be much difference between the two, other than |
| 18 |
perhaps that they are hosted in different places to more clearly |
| 19 |
communicate intent of the developers who work on the project. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
It would also be up to developers if they want to move their project |
| 22 |
between the two "types". |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> The new model is much more bazar-like, with the Council as a forum |
| 26 |
> for appeal if things get out of hand. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
They could make recommendations about where new projects should |
| 29 |
probably start, but developers could still be free to choose the |
| 30 |
other type. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> If once in a while we have to deal with the fallout of something |
| 34 |
> like this I'll take that any day if it makes it more likely for the |
| 35 |
> next X32/Prefix/etc to take off on Gentoo. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
I don't think it's strictly neccessary to accept fallout from |
| 38 |
misunderstandings just to have room for innovation. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
//Peter |
Archives