| 1 |
On 10:31 Wed 26 Jan , Petteri Räty wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 01/26/2011 10:19 AM, Torsten Veller wrote: |
| 3 |
> > I also see the downside of the GLEP process: If you run "Developer |
| 4 |
> > Relations" - a project not being backed up by a GLEP - you can |
| 5 |
> > change the policy as you like and don't have to ask for feedback |
| 6 |
> > from the community at all [1]. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> That document was eventually approved by the council and I don't plan |
| 9 |
> on doing major modifications on my own. But there's a good point here |
| 10 |
> in that it's probably a good idea to turn that document into a GLEP. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Although I agree that community input can be helpful and it's good to |
| 13 |
allow for it, I don't think it is the council's place to regulate the |
| 14 |
details of every project. We should give teams the independence and |
| 15 |
autonomy to do as we see fit — we aren't parents of 2-year-old children. |
| 16 |
(Well, I am, but she isn't yet using Gentoo.) |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
All the council should ever need to provide is approval of a *short* |
| 19 |
overarching team/project mission, and only that in the event that a |
| 20 |
project has power over others outside of its boundaries. Individual |
| 21 |
teams should be able to implement their missions through policy and |
| 22 |
action as they deem necessary. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
The council can step in if a team's policies are inconsistent with its |
| 25 |
mission, but we don't need overly invasive "helicopter parents" swooping |
| 26 |
in to micromanage every project. The council should act as an overseer |
| 27 |
of all of Gentoo, not as an active participant in every team's |
| 28 |
decisions. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Thanks, |
| 32 |
Donnie |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Donnie Berkholz |
| 35 |
Sr. Developer, Gentoo Linux |
| 36 |
Blog: http://dberkholz.com |
Archives