1 |
On 12/29/2014 02:06 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
2 |
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 2:34 PM, hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
>> Anthony G. Basile: |
4 |
>>> |
5 |
>>> I'd like to add a discussion on glep 39. In particular, under |
6 |
>>> specifications we have: |
7 |
>>> |
8 |
>>> "It may have one or many leads, and the leads are selected by the |
9 |
>>> members of the project. This selection must occur at least once every 12 |
10 |
>>> months, and may occur at any time." |
11 |
>>> |
12 |
>> |
13 |
>> That requirement imposes a specific structure on projects. There are |
14 |
>> ways to have a functional project without any lead. |
15 |
>> |
16 |
>> So that phrase should be removed altogether. |
17 |
>> |
18 |
> |
19 |
> I think we need to step back and think about why we have projects. |
20 |
> The whole point of projects is to have something in-between the |
21 |
> Council and anything-goes. So, if you want to know whether doing xyz |
22 |
> is acceptable for Python modules, you can ask the Python project. If |
23 |
> you REALLY disagree you can then complain to the Council, but they're |
24 |
> probably going to just side with the Python project since that is the |
25 |
> whole reason for having a Python project. |
26 |
> |
27 |
> Well, since projects are inanimate concepts you can't actually ask |
28 |
> them questions - you need people to talk for them. So, if 3 people on |
29 |
> the Python project say one thing, and 3 others say something else, |
30 |
> then what IS the opinion of the Python project? To settle that we |
31 |
> have project leads. |
32 |
> |
33 |
> I'll certainly agree that not everything needs a formal project. |
34 |
> However, if a project wants to have authority/autonomy beyond |
35 |
> anything-goes, then it should welcome members and elect a lead |
36 |
> regularly. |
37 |
> |
38 |
> I think that some of what sparked this question is that some projects |
39 |
> are fairly non-responsive, and devs don't feel at liberty to make |
40 |
> commits to packages under the authority of that project. IMHO the |
41 |
> simplest solution here is to tell people to just announce their |
42 |
> changes and go ahead and make them if there are no objections. The |
43 |
> onus has to be on the person blocking change to prevent it, unless we |
44 |
> want to fossilize. Of course, anybody can always go to the Council |
45 |
> for help, but the point isn't to micromanage every little decision |
46 |
> anybody wants to make. |
47 |
> |
48 |
|
49 |
The onus was already on them to stop a commit. question 13 of the |
50 |
second section. |
51 |
|
52 |
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/quiz/ebuild-quiz.txt |
53 |
|
54 |
I would love some sort of automatic process for doing elections though. |
55 |
I'm not the best at this (scheduling and admin work). |
56 |
|
57 |
-- |
58 |
-- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire) |