| 1 |
On 01/05/15 09:06, hasufell wrote: |
| 2 |
> Dean Stephens: |
| 3 |
>> Are you then proposing that some entity enforce GLEP 39 constraints? |
| 4 |
>> (Hint: a mechanism already exists for that.) |
| 5 |
>> Are you proposing that those constraints be relaxed in some specific way? |
| 6 |
>> If so, under what conditions? |
| 7 |
>> If a project has no leads, who is responsible for maintaining project |
| 8 |
>> roll call? |
| 9 |
>> If nobody is tasked with keeping the roll call up to date, as much as |
| 10 |
>> possible given technical constraints, how can a project page be |
| 11 |
>> determined to be definitely out of date? |
| 12 |
>> If there are no constraints with regard to a project page being kept up |
| 13 |
>> to date and no need for project leads for anything at all, what are your |
| 14 |
>> new constraints for a project to be considered active? |
| 15 |
>> Am I to keep guessing until you deign to reveal something resembling a |
| 16 |
>> proposal? |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> I said earlier in this thread that it's a cultural problem (in some |
| 19 |
> degree also a technical, but not as much as people think and I think |
| 20 |
> some people try to downplay it to just the technical level). |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Rich said that "FOSS tends to be do-acracy", but do-acracy doesn't say |
| 23 |
> if the project is open to collaboration. Such projects usually end up |
| 24 |
> being a one-man project (we already have those and this thread is |
| 25 |
> exactly about them). Do we want gentoo as a whole to be a one-man |
| 26 |
> project again? |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
Reductio ad absurdum is itself absurd here, unless you actually have |
| 29 |
some examples of projects with a single developer who is refusing |
| 30 |
qualified applicants with whom they can maintain functional collaboration. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Do "we" want to force people to work with anyone and everyone who claims |
| 33 |
any interest, regardless of technical and social mismatches between |
| 34 |
them? Regardless of whether their professed interest is beneficial to |
| 35 |
the goals of the project at hand? |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
>> If this is all still about your witch hunt, do kindly consider the |
| 38 |
>> pocket veto article[1] I had referred you to earlier, it applies. Not |
| 39 |
>> everyone is necessarily going to want to work with everyone else, |
| 40 |
>> especially when there is negative personal history or indications that |
| 41 |
>> the prospective newcomer, to whatever role, is ill suited to that role |
| 42 |
>> to consider. Even if it is merely a matter of disinterest, if a project |
| 43 |
>> lead does not want to work with you, trying to force them to will only |
| 44 |
>> end badly. |
| 45 |
>> |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
> You again miss the point and ignore the fact that the council has |
| 48 |
> already agreed that SEVERAL (I'm not just talking about one) projects |
| 49 |
> are non-functional in the recent past. |
| 50 |
And you mistake asking you to make your point for missing what you have |
| 51 |
actually conveyed so far. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
Let us review these council findings. What follows is a list of Council |
| 54 |
meeting summaries for all votes regarding standing projects in the past |
| 55 |
two years. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
QA disbanded: |
| 58 |
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20131112-summary.txt |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
Kolab, GSE and Gentoo/Alt AT disbanded: |
| 61 |
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20131119-summary.txt |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
Regarding the operational scope of the new QA team: |
| 64 |
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20131210-summary.txt |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
An effectively null mention of the functional scope of QA, no summary: |
| 67 |
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20140225.txt |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
Regarding games team work flow and scope, not its validity as a project: |
| 70 |
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20140812-summary.txt |
| 71 |
|
| 72 |
Regarding games team, again not finding against it as a project: |
| 73 |
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20141021-summary.txt |
| 74 |
|
| 75 |
Another effectively null vote regarding the games team: |
| 76 |
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20141111-summary.txt |
| 77 |
|
| 78 |
With no meeting log nor summary yet posted for the 2014-12-09 meeting. |
| 79 |
|
| 80 |
In summary, no projects have been found to be "non-functional" in over a |
| 81 |
year, none. Prior to that, one active project was forcibly disbanded and |
| 82 |
three seemingly inactive projects were dissolved. |
| 83 |
|
| 84 |
Calling votes taken over a year ago "recent" seems somewhat pushing |
| 85 |
terminology, especially given your rather emphatic usage of several, |
| 86 |
which apparently related only to inactive projects. |
| 87 |
|
| 88 |
Even aside from it being rather sad that you knew exactly what was meant |
| 89 |
by "your witch hunt", which implies that you recognize on some level |
| 90 |
that it at least appears to others to be exactly that. |
| 91 |
|
| 92 |
> It's not just about not responding to membership applications (which is |
| 93 |
> NOT a rejection) which has happened to several gentoo devs and had to be |
| 94 |
> fixed by the council. |
| 95 |
It is certainly not acceptance, unless they silently add the applicant |
| 96 |
to their project page, IRC channel(s) (if applicable), and any relevant |
| 97 |
restricted access repositories; as such basic logic implies that what is |
| 98 |
not acceptance is not acceptance. One might even call that a tautology. |
| 99 |
|
| 100 |
> It's about being non-collaborative in the sense of |
| 101 |
> * almost never responding to users |
| 102 |
> * barely responding to gentoo devs (not just me, even if you think that) |
| 103 |
> * sometimes not reviewing (I am serious and can give several examples) |
| 104 |
> ebuild/eclass proposals at all (and don't tell me not reviewing |
| 105 |
> something is a rejection) |
| 106 |
> * not keeping a project functional in so many ways that it has to be |
| 107 |
> brought up to the council (this shouldn't happen... we have |
| 108 |
> theoretically two projects before this instance: undertakers and ComRel, |
| 109 |
> but both seem to think it's not within their scope) |
| 110 |
> |
| 111 |
Now that you have a problem statement that is not in the form of "the |
| 112 |
problem is not X", you are half way to making a proposal. |
| 113 |
|
| 114 |
> If you think this is something about a personal vendetta, then you |
| 115 |
> didn't follow the project ML in the last few months. It's not even about |
| 116 |
> a single person. |
| 117 |
> |
| 118 |
Actually, following this mailing list and gentoo-dev is in large part |
| 119 |
why I have the distinct impression that a personal problem is precisely |
| 120 |
what is driving your call for still ill-defined reform. |
| 121 |
|
| 122 |
> It's about do-acracy and the fact that it doesn't work without a |
| 123 |
> collaboration model AND mindest. |
| 124 |
> |
| 125 |
What are you actually proposing? |
| 126 |
|
| 127 |
> And yes... collaboration is also "no, we won't do it that way" or "no, |
| 128 |
> we do it differently". But it's not about "i don't give two shits what |
| 129 |
> bonsaikitten thinks" (some users get ComReld for saying similar things |
| 130 |
> on bugzilla... but if you have enough commits in gx86...) |
| 131 |
> |
| 132 |
> |
Archives