Re: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2013-09-10

[Rich Freeman]

On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote:
>
> Please don't interpret anything I'm saying as a lack of care for small
> archs.  I'd just rather see them define their goals in terms of things
> they can actually accomplish and then accomplish those.  Having a
> bunch of ancient stable versions that are just weighing down the rest
> of the distro isn't really a good measure of success.  That was why I
> suggested the possible @system-only compromise - it might be a way to
> capture some of the value of having stable keywords while greatly
> reducing the amount of work involved.  Better to do less but do it
> properly.
>

I didn't really get any response to this one way or another.  At the
last council meeting a majority of the votes were in favor of delaying
taking action, so this is back on the agenda.
I have yet to see either of the following on this list:
1.  Specific examples of bugs where a minor arch is making a
maintainer's life difficult.  Please post if you have them.
2.  Members of these arch teams posting here committing to either
stabilize new versions or unkeyword old versions in a timely manner.

The responses to either of these (or lack thereof) are likely to
influence my vote at the meeting.  Note, I'm not interested in mere
comments that people want an arch to stay stable supported (which I've
seen plenty of).  I'm interested in COMMITMENT to be
stable-supportable (which I've seen none of).  The lack of the latter
is what is going to cause a package to be dropped - I'd love to see
every arch that exists stable-supported on Gentoo, along with world
peace.  This is a volunteer distro - in general you get the features
you pitch in to help deliver, and if you're depending on a minor arch
you REALLY need to step up as there aren't many of you out there.
That said, I would like specific examples of cases where dropping a
minor arch would have helped - the onus is on those wanting the status
quo changed to present a case.

Rich