| 1 |
On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 8:35 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. |
| 2 |
<wlt-ml@××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> You all are destroying Gentoo's roots... |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> This is a very sad direction and trend. To have groups that are restricted to |
| 6 |
> membership. That leads have to approve members, and creating silos within |
| 7 |
> Gentoo. This will only make things worse, increase individual power, create |
| 8 |
> further barriers, and make Gentoo a more restrictive vs open environment. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Next will be restricting commit access to the Teams you are a member of and |
| 11 |
> other horrible stuff. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I think you're drawing the trend line in the wrong direction. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Special projects like QA/Comrel have operated the way they have for |
| 17 |
ages, certainly as long as I can remember. All writing a GLEP will do |
| 18 |
is document how they're supposed to operate, and if anything we're |
| 19 |
trying to make things more transparent than they already are. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
And historically I'd say that projects and maintainers were a lot more |
| 22 |
possessive of their packages in the past than they are today. The |
| 23 |
general trend has been towards opening things up, with just the right |
| 24 |
level of controls so that we maintain reasonable QA/etc. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
If people really want to participate in QA/Comrel/Infra/etc, try |
| 27 |
reaching out to the leads of these projects. I bet that they'd |
| 28 |
probably find some way to get you involved. And if not by all means |
| 29 |
mention it to a Council member. Heck, I know that when I'm unable to |
| 30 |
make a Council meeting it isn't always easy to find a proxy, so if |
| 31 |
somebody really would like to get more involved in that side of things |
| 32 |
let me know and I'll see if it makes sense. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
The intent here isn't to create exclusive clubs. It is just a |
| 35 |
recognition that these bodies wield a lot of power and it needs to be |
| 36 |
governed. We don't want random people adding themselves to the QA |
| 37 |
alias and then going around proclaiming "QA says you must do this..." |
| 38 |
Especially since policy is that when people do say things like that |
| 39 |
you're supposed to take it up with the head of QA and not just ignore |
| 40 |
them. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
-- |
| 43 |
Rich |
Archives