Gentoo Archives: gentoo-pms

From: Andrew D Kirch <trelane@×××××××.net>
To: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
Cc: Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o>, Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o>, gentoo-pms@l.g.o, council@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-pms] Mismatch between tree and PMS
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:59:41
Message-Id: 4AB3AE5F.2080501@trelane.net
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-pms] Mismatch between tree and PMS by Ciaran McCreesh
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