1 |
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 16:46:12 -0400 |
2 |
Luis Francisco Araujo <araujo@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> Marius Mauch wrote: |
5 |
> > On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 14:15:18 -0400 |
6 |
> > Luis Francisco Araujo <araujo@g.o> wrote: |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> >> Marius Mauch wrote: |
9 |
> >>> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:53:32 -0400 |
10 |
> >>> Luis Francisco Araujo <araujo@g.o> wrote: |
11 |
> >>> |
12 |
> >>>> Lance Albertson wrote: |
13 |
> >>>>> I thought of that while I was walking to a meeting..heh |
14 |
> >>>>> Basically, Appoint two people to co-lead, or appoint one Lead |
15 |
> >>>>> and one Vice Lead. That way there's some kind of accountability |
16 |
> >>>>> on the bare minimum level and good coverage (hopefully). |
17 |
> >>>>> |
18 |
> >>>> I was also thinking about turning the Council into a Leaders |
19 |
> >>>> Group , or probably to create a new Core Team. |
20 |
> >>> [snip] |
21 |
> >>> |
22 |
> >>> Before everyone start posting "solutions" please *clearly* define |
23 |
> >>> the perceived problem first, otherwise all attempts to fix it are |
24 |
> >>> futile. |
25 |
> >>> |
26 |
> >> Gentoo current state of stagnation. |
27 |
> >> (re-read some posting of this thread, the first one made by Donnie |
28 |
> >> mainly) |
29 |
> > |
30 |
> > That's about as vague as you can get. |
31 |
> > |
32 |
> > Marius |
33 |
> > |
34 |
> |
35 |
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=gentoo-dev&m=115637880223243&w=2 |
36 |
> |
37 |
> |
38 |
> *sighs* |
39 |
|
40 |
Donnie isn't much clearer either (it's mostly observations mixed with |
41 |
personal feelings, not much in real problem anlysis). |
42 |
Why do you think Gentoo is stagnating? |
43 |
What are the exact problems? |
44 |
List them one by one with one or two sentences, give concrete |
45 |
examples/pointers of what went wrong in the past. Statements like |
46 |
"nothing got done in Gentoo" are useless when you don't say what you |
47 |
think should have been done (without using "something"). |
48 |
|
49 |
In my opinion this really isn't much different than fixing a bug in |
50 |
a program (conceptually): |
51 |
1) Describe the problem by listing actual and expected results. |
52 |
2) Locate the (physical) source of the problem. |
53 |
3) Analyze what's really causing the problem, verify that your analysis |
54 |
is correct. |
55 |
4) Determine what the best option to fix the problem |
56 |
|
57 |
Right now we're just at the beginning of 1), we have a high level |
58 |
description of the problem, now we need to split it up into testcases |
59 |
(= actual examples of what people think went wrong). |
60 |
Only then can you proceed with the next step. |
61 |
|
62 |
Maybe it's just because I don't really see a problem myself, but I'd |
63 |
really like to understand what people want to get improved, but for |
64 |
that we have to move the discussion to a lower (technical) level. Or do |
65 |
you consider bug reports useful where the problem description is "it |
66 |
doesn't work"? |
67 |
|
68 |
I mean we had a structure when Daniel left, we considered it to be |
69 |
broken and replaced it with something else (after a long debate, |
70 |
selected from multiple proposals), and now everyone says this is also |
71 |
broken and again wants to turn everything upside? If so then lets first |
72 |
please examine why. |
73 |
|
74 |
Marius |
75 |
|
76 |
PS: I'm not tied to any specific structure, just dislike the constant |
77 |
"something sucks, lets change something in the organization to fix it" |
78 |
attitude without ever really knowing what this "something" exactly is. |
79 |
|
80 |
-- |
81 |
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub |
82 |
|
83 |
In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be |
84 |
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better. |