Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
To: Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-project@l.g.o, Michael Sterrett <michael@×××××××××.net>, games@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-08-12
Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2014 11:24:12
Message-Id: 20140802132433.7081564f@pomiot.lan
In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-08-12 by Rich Freeman
1 Dnia 2014-07-31, o godz. 06:53:50
2 Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> napisał(a):
4 > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Andreas K. Huettel
5 > <dilfridge@g.o> wrote:
6 > >> I didn't bother replying before because I think my assumption was that
7 > >> the council was clever enough to recognize silly when they saw it.
8 > >> There never was a compelling argument for dispelling policy set by
9 > >> groups in the general case and I'm not sure why the games group would
10 > >> be considered to have lesser status in that regard.
11 > >
12 > > That actually doesn't address any of the issues brought up.
13 > >
14 > > The main question is, why should the games team have more status than other
15 > > projects?
16 >
17 > ++
18 >
19 > Generally I am in favor of giving projects that adhere to GLEP39 more
20 > of a say in things than individual maintainers, but setting aside
21 > QA/Comrel/Infra there aren't really any projects out there which claim
22 > the same kind of scope as games. Amd64 might have a say over your
23 > KEYWORDS, or systemd might want to install a text file you don't have
24 > to look at, but none of them are going to basically rewrite your
25 > ebuild, rename it, or tell you to get it out of the tree. The
26 > Gnome/KDE projects don't care if you install an application that uses
27 > libkde/etc, though you'd do well to coordinate if you don't want
28 > random breakage on the next big change.
30 Well, just to be clear, I don't mind GNOME/KDE claiming maintainership
31 over core components of both DEs. Much like I don't even mind games
32 team maintaining core components necessary for gaming like SDL.
34 > If this were just an issue about games not accepting new members I
35 > think that would be pretty trivial to fix, but I haven't gotten any
36 > replies to my solicitation. So, this is more than whether the lead
37 > responds to member requests.
39 I'm afraid that games team is a bit like upside-down compared to other
40 teams, and that is a social issue. While pretty much every other team
41 is happy to accept contributors, games team feels -- lightly said --
42 unwelcome. I don't think you can really resolve it via jamming it new
43 members by force.
45 While I can't speak for the specific people, I think they are pretty
46 much afraid that such an attempt would result in they feeling
47 unwelcome, and possibly having no real status.
49 > Some options open to the council are:
50 > 1. Let the games project keep its policy, and anybody who wants to
51 > change this has to join the project and call for elections (the
52 > council can shoe-horn members onto the project if necessary).
54 As I see it, this can have two results:
56 a. games team elects new lead from current members, nothing changes,
58 b. you shoe-horn enough new members to force a new lead amongst them,
59 and existing members likely leave the project because of this.
61 > 2. Directly tweak games policy but preserve the project and its
62 > scope. So, games would still have to adhere to games project policy,
63 > but the Council might change specific policies (use of eclass, group,
64 > etc).
66 This doesn't feel correct to have team policies set by Council,
67 and again, the games team is likely to either ignore the decision or
68 disband itself because of it.
70 > 3. Restrict the games project scope, such as giving it authority if
71 > the package maintainer elects to put it in the games herd.
73 I'd dare say this is not something the Council needs to do but only to
74 confirm. I'd be really happy to drop <herd>games</herd> from my game
75 packages as soon as Council confirms that the games team isn't allowed
76 to use that as an excuse to remove them or take over the maintainership.
78 > Do we really have a sense for how much demand there is for change? #4
79 > (or something equivalent like nicely asking games to deal with this)
80 > might make sense if we think this is really just 2-3 devs with an
81 > opinion, and that there isn't a larger demand out there.
83 It's not as simple as some people disliking how things are. I believe
84 that the policies and behavior of the games team is the reason why
85 people are getting discouraged from contributing.
87 As a result, we have games team which can't handle the workload, few
88 contributors which have patience to work with games team and a lot of
89 people who would be happy to improve gaming experience in Gentoo but
90 simply lost the will to or otherwise lost the ability to improve their
91 ebuild skills.
93 --
94 Best regards,
95 Michał Górny


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature