| 1 |
On 12/30/14 09:25, hasufell wrote: |
| 2 |
> Dean Stephens: |
| 3 |
>> On 12/29/14 15:06, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> I'll certainly agree that not everything needs a formal project. |
| 5 |
>>> However, if a project wants to have authority/autonomy beyond |
| 6 |
>>> anything-goes, then it should welcome members and elect a lead |
| 7 |
>>> regularly. |
| 8 |
>>> |
| 9 |
>> There is at least a defensible argument to be made that being able to |
| 10 |
>> reject applicants is more important to being able to maintain a coherent |
| 11 |
>> project than the often indicated duty to accept anyone who shows interest. |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> What about projects that don't even reject, but rather ignore |
| 15 |
> devs/contributors? |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
If they have a maintained project page, have elected a lead in the past |
| 18 |
12 months, and that lead is otherwise active; take it for what it is: |
| 19 |
rejection [1]. Otherwise, they either need to elect a new lead or allow |
| 20 |
the project to dissolve, according to GLEP 39 [2]. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> We tell them to elect a new lead, so we don't have to deal with the |
| 23 |
> people who screwed up, but can say "here, they formally are a functional |
| 24 |
> project according to a random glep... problem solved". |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
So, the document specifying the organizational structure of Gentoo as a |
| 28 |
whole [2, again] is just "a random glep" now? Is anyone supposed to take |
| 29 |
that rhetoric seriously or were you attempting to use humor? Either make |
| 30 |
a concrete proposal to update or entirely supersede the existing project |
| 31 |
structure or work within it, merely complaining about it is pointless. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocket_veto |
| 34 |
[2] http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/GLEP:39 |
Archives