1 |
Kito wrote: |
2 |
>> Additionally, a lot of developers choose to work on long-term projects |
3 |
>> in an overlay and thus don't necessarily commit things to the portage |
4 |
>> tree proper on a regular basis. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> Who is working on what where when? |
7 |
|
8 |
funny you ask |
9 |
> |
10 |
>> |
11 |
>> This being said, there are a good number of inactive developers. In a |
12 |
>> previous e-mail on this thread, Hasan and I explained our inability to |
13 |
>> take care of this problem without assuming the "Lead" position. Since |
14 |
>> there were no direct objections to our taking this position |
15 |
> |
16 |
> I think I have to object. |
17 |
|
18 |
Kito has it's own concerns, I like to focus on another side of this |
19 |
issue. Besides that I think a dual headed lead is retarded, I like to |
20 |
point at the literature. Think of some big management gurus, like |
21 |
Mintzberg (could I mention another name instantly?), Davenport, etc. |
22 |
they all say the same: a lead (or manager) is assingned from above, and |
23 |
comes from a herd the to be lead herd is not familiar with. In other |
24 |
words: yes, we are in need of a lead, but he or she will come from |
25 |
another team. For example a senior dev from the mips or whatever herd. |
26 |
|
27 |
Ok, why you say, simple. Noone will accept a lead from his/hers own |
28 |
team. Simple as that. It works like that in the real world. It's hard |
29 |
for the lead and hard for the people to be lead. Hard because you used |
30 |
to be on the same level, and had chats/whatever on the works as being a |
31 |
'worker', now suddenly that co-worker is going to tell you what to do. |
32 |
And maybe you don't like it. You used to be able to have arguments, now |
33 |
you're just supposed to cooperate. |
34 |
|
35 |
You can throw up the "this is voluntary work" and stuff, but that's the |
36 |
whole reason why it doesn't work, IMHO. People are too free. Charity |
37 |
work is being directed too. "You are free to do as we tell you", [1] |
38 |
and if you don't want that, go look for some other charity work. Of |
39 |
course, it would be nice if a discussion with the lead is allowed. |
40 |
|
41 |
If Mike Frysinger would jump in today or tomorrow, here in this team, |
42 |
we'd have to listen to "OSX sucks" all day long, but also "if we do it |
43 |
like this, then it works, even on osx". IMHO, this is the danger, and |
44 |
progress that's not here. The guy is great in making decisions on his |
45 |
own. Out of scope for the discussion whether those decisions are |
46 |
correct. He makes Gentoo (as a whole) move. |
47 |
|
48 |
> The g/fbsd team is waaaaaaay farther along than we are, and they still |
49 |
> have 0 official docs/policies/etc. I don't believe that to be a |
50 |
> coincidence. |
51 |
|
52 |
Maybe we should as a team be more than 'interested' in what Diegò does... |
53 |
|
54 |
> http://cia.navi.cx/stats/author/<nick> and bugs.g.o are fairly telling... |
55 |
|
56 |
Thanks, I didn't know of that one. Most useful. |
57 |
|
58 |
>> Again, please don't confuse lack of commits with lack of |
59 |
>> participation. Also note that we have only a handful of active |
60 |
>> developers. Once we agree upon policy for inactivity, we can make some |
61 |
>> progress with weeding out those that are not contributing. |
62 |
> |
63 |
> I haven't been too active in commits lately myself...RL,work and trouble |
64 |
> with the 'big picture' of the project has slowed me down... |
65 |
|
66 |
Somehow, the point of my comment is completely missed. I don't know |
67 |
exactly what Kito is working on at the moment, and I don't know at all |
68 |
what Hasan and Lina are working on, but I know they are doing |
69 |
'something', and every once in a while they show some sign of life. |
70 |
There are around 15 (fifteen!) people associated to the ppc-macos team, |
71 |
it seems. Then from those 15, are only mentioned 3 plus myself active? |
72 |
That is the question I put on the table. People that once signed up |
73 |
or where dragged into this project. Where are they, do they even think |
74 |
of ppc-macos, or can we just clear them out (with devrel help?) and make |
75 |
clear what the team consist of? |
76 |
|
77 |
> I guess I don't work on macos stuff? I feel like I've been fairly vocal |
78 |
> as to what I am / will be working on. |
79 |
|
80 |
Again, I was not after you, or Hasan, or Lina. Though, I think I know a |
81 |
little bit what's your road, as we discussed it a few times. |
82 |
|
83 |
> I think ATs are a great idea, but work better with a larger dev/user |
84 |
> base. We couldn't even keep up with the bugs/patches/requests/reports |
85 |
> submitted by our existing small base of users. The notion of 'not |
86 |
> checking the ATs work' seems very odd, if an active dev is merely a |
87 |
> proxy for a users work, that user should just be mentored and become an |
88 |
> official dev. |
89 |
|
90 |
In the light of GLEP 40, I think we should come up with a different name |
91 |
for our AT, because it doesn't match what the GLEP 40 AT means. If we |
92 |
ever happen to GLEP our AT, we will have a number > 40, hence we need |
93 |
another term. |
94 |
|
95 |
I think the difference can be said to be that the AT proposal here |
96 |
assumes an AT to work on ~arch, while the GLEP assumes an AT to work on |
97 |
arch. The GLEP proposal is interesting for us, because it discusses our |
98 |
'stabling' problems from an x86 world. |
99 |
|
100 |
|
101 |
[1] Adam Freeland - We Want Your Soul - Freeland Records |
102 |
|
103 |
|
104 |
-- |
105 |
Fabian Groffen |
106 |
Gentoo for Mac OS X |
107 |
-- |
108 |
gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list |