Re: [gentoo-pms] Mismatch between tree and PMS

[Andrew D Kirch]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:32:34 -0400
> Andrew D Kirch <trelane@×××××××.net> wrote:
>
>> We agree on very little, but one thing we do agree on is the quantity
>> of trolling that DOES occur on -dev when these issues are brought
>> up.  Is there any method by which a discussion can be had on -PMS in
>> a smaller forum, and a proposal could thereby be brought to -dev in
>> several weeks agreed upon here, and subsequently submitted to the
>> Council?  I'm hoping this will reduce the potential for trolling.
>>
>
> That tends to be what happens anyway, and I strongly suspect we've
> already covered all the pros and cons of the proposal on this list that
> we're going to come up with (although there're probably some
> interesting viewpoints on the upgrade path that can be had from a
> wider audience). The wider consultation part is necessary, though, since
> I doubt anyone wants things that aren't a simple "there's only one side
> to this" to go from PMS to Council without them having had a good public
> airing first.
>
Agreed, but I'd like to have something more formal, and perhaps
someplace less loud than -dev for this.

> There're threads that end up working fine on gentoo-dev@, and there're
> threads where there's an endless supply of FUD posted to them. Things
> that tend to help make threads the former rather than the latter are:
>
> * The initial proposal, and any counter proposals, being clear and well
>   defined, and not vague ideas that haven't been thought through. It's
>   possible to screw things up for months just by replying "well I have
>   an alternate proposal that involves frozbinating the glixnors", and
>   then not telling anyone what that proposal is.
>
Agreed
> * Arguments for or against a proposal being expressed clearly and in
>   technical terms, rather than "warblgarbl".
>
I just mentally filter out such things.
> * Getting contributions only from people who understand the issue at
>   hand. That one's the biggie, and I've not found any way of helping on
>   that -- providing clear and detailed explanations of everything
>   has only led to people not reading those explanations. Some people
>   seem to be able to think that their opinions are relevant even if
>   they're commenting on highly technical issues that they haven't taken
>   the time to understand.
>
Opinions on the internet are like assholes, everyone has one, and some
smell more than others.
> * Where multiple options are available, having several clearly separate
>   proposals rather than trying to lump everything into a single
>   proposal that covers every option.
>
> The ultimate decision making process also hasn't helped. In the past
> the Council has worked on a policy of "if there're any unanswered
> questions, the proposal gets postponed", even if those questions are
> obviously nonsense and have already been addressed twenty times
> previously. This unfortunately means that the trolls can't simply be
> ignored.
>
I don't think you'll get an argument from me on the failures of Council
leadership.
> Having said that, all it takes is for a couple of people to jump on a
> proposal they don't understand and start yelling that it will break
> their favourite toy, and at best the proposal then gets derailed for
> several months before sanity prevails.
>
This is what I'm trying to avoid.  If we're going to propose something,
I'd rather hash it out here and then submit it to dev than to start a
-dev thread with "so I had this idea... maybe we could change EAPI-4 to
do X"

Andrew