Gentoo Archives: gentoo-osx

From: Grobian <grobian@g.o>
To: gentoo-osx@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-osx] Arch Testing Policy and Procedures
Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 06:28:40
Message-Id: 431BE578.8040109@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-osx] Arch Testing Policy and Procedures by Kito
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

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-osx] Arch Testing Policy and Procedures Nathan <nathan.stocks@×××××.com>