| 1 |
W dniu pon, 02.07.2018 o godzinie 11∶21 +0300, użytkownik Eray Aslan |
| 2 |
napisał: |
| 3 |
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 08:32:25PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 4 |
> > I've chosen our numbers to be high enough to discourage attempted abuse |
| 5 |
> > while making it possible to actually use GR when necessary. Which |
| 6 |
> > numbers are you specifically talking about? |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> N1 and N2 |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> > N1 being around 30 developers may seem large but it's certainly smaller |
| 11 |
> > than the number of Gentoo developers actively contributing to Gentoo |
| 12 |
> > every day. I get that getting them all to sign off is cumbersome but if |
| 13 |
> > there's a real reason to use GR, I'm pretty sure they'll find |
| 14 |
> > the motivation to do that. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> GLEP: twice the square root of active developers, i.e. ~30 I guess |
| 17 |
> Debian: half the square root active developers or 5 whichever is |
| 18 |
> smaller. So practically 6 (5+1) |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Council has 7 members. A number lower than that makes no sense. |
| 21 |
Claiming that 6 developers represent the majority is plain wrong. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> And bear in mind that Debian has a lot more active developers. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> > N2 being 25% developers is really small. We're talking about all-dev |
| 26 |
> > vote, so really expecting at least 25% to actively take part is a must. |
| 27 |
> > It's larger than N1 but we're talking of a vote that's handled via |
| 28 |
> > voting mechanism all devs are supposed to notice. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> GLEP: 25% |
| 31 |
> Debian: ~10% if we take number of active developers as 200 |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> > The 2:1 majority is what Debian uses for overriding decisions of TC. |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> 2:1 is fine. |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> Getting ~30 developers to sign a petition is just not realistic. I |
| 38 |
> doubt it will ever be done. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
It is realistic that you find 30 developers if there is a serious |
| 41 |
problem needing to be solved. If you right front assume it is |
| 42 |
impossible, then maybe you're wrongly presuming you're representing |
| 43 |
the majority? |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
> I feel we are back to the same differences as we did in closing the |
| 46 |
> gentoo-dev ML to the general public, namely low/no tolerance for |
| 47 |
> dissident voices. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
I'm not sure if you understand the purpose of this GLEP. For any GR |
| 50 |
motion to pass, the *majority* must vote for it. It's not about letting |
| 51 |
a minority of 'dissident voices' decide. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
> "I know best, my way or highway" attitude is not always a bad thing in |
| 54 |
> technical matters. However, as we have seen in the gentoo-dev ML |
| 55 |
> discussion, council decides on non-tech matters as well. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
I don't see how that is relevant to the topic at hand. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
> The procedure for calculating the number of active developers should |
| 60 |
> probably also be mentioned somewhere in the GLEP or perhaps referenced |
| 61 |
> if defined elsewhere. |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
The number of active developers is based on the voter list which in turn |
| 64 |
comes from LDAP. The date for getting this list is specified |
| 65 |
in the GLEP. |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
-- |
| 68 |
Best regards, |
| 69 |
Michał Górny |
Archives