Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
To: gentoo-project <gentoo-project@l.g.o>
Cc: Gentoo Council <council@g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Council meeting 2019-12-08 19:00 UTC - Agenda topics?
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2019 14:22:22
Message-Id: CAGfcS_nPT0Hsj9_4yjEAzqzKhhr7zTfdHJdKk1H7L5UDgnyjoQ@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] Council meeting 2019-12-08 19:00 UTC - Agenda topics? by "Michał Górny"
On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 4:10 AM Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:
> > === > Should Gentoo developers be expected to be able to find a way to work > together to build a somewhat consistent distribution, or should it be > allowed for individual developers to 'run their own shops' and ignore > everybody else? > === > > To explain what I mean with an extreme example: in the past we had > a developer who blocked adding systemd units to his own packages because > of his own personal agenda against systemd. This was obviously harmful > to systemd users who couldn't install use those packages normally, > and was harmful to consistent user experience across Gentoo.
Without wanting to start a flame war, is there a more contemporary example, or even a hypothetical? That particular systemd issue was resolved years ago by escalation to the Council, which set a policy that was a reasonable compromise, and it appears to have worked as there has been little argument over that particular matter since. I'd assume that if other specific issues come up, they would be also escalated, and Council would again set a reasonable policy that everybody could live with. I guess we could ask the Council to have a purely ideological discussion, but IMO it isn't necessary. If we didn't want to have a mechanism to ensure a reasonable level of consistency we wouldn't have the Council in the first place. Having a mechanism to resolve these conflicts won't prevent them from happening in the first place. I think that Gentoo's key attributes of being flexible/FOSS/etc probably attract people with strong opinions on matters, and there are bound to be cases where they can't be resolved by mutual agreement. I'll go ahead and toss out a more recent example without naming names/etc (not that anybody couldn't find it if they went looking). There was some heated discussion over disagreement on appropriate use or naming of a USE flag. Ultimately the package maintainer made the call (at least implicitly via their commit). There was some disagreement over that call. Nothing was formally escalated to QA/Council/etc or any other technical governing body. Is that an example of the system working as intended (if the issue were important enough it would have been escalated, and work got done without undue delay), or is it an example of it being broken (nobody wants to have to deal with escalating things, so maybe the maintainer should have sought approval/consensus/etc first, plus if it were escalated now we're changing things already in the repo)? I could cite the specifics if needed - my goal is to raise a contemporary example that might or might not be what you're getting at, without dragging actual debate over that specific issue into this thread... -- Rich