Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-02-11
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 17:33:06
Message-Id: 1517247177.1187.12.camel@gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-02-11 by Ulrich Mueller
1 W dniu nie, 28.01.2018 o godzinie 14∶05 +0100, użytkownik Ulrich Mueller
2 napisał:
3 > In two weeks from now, the council will meet again. This is the time
4 > to raise and prepare items that the council should put on the agenda
5 > to discuss or vote on.
6 >
7 > Please respond to this message with agenda items. Do not hesitate to
8 > repeat your agenda item here with a pointer if you previously
9 > suggested one (since the last meeting).
10 >
11
12 I can think of two past items that need our attention:
13
14
15 1. Continuation on status of nios2/riscv.
16 =========================================
17
18 The bug has gotten no attention so far from the person adding those
19 keywords. If he doesn't show any sign of good faith in the next two
20 weeks, I think we should vote for removing the arch along with
21 the relevant profiles.
22
23 For the record: nios2 was added in Apr 2015, riscv in Aug 2015. Neither
24 has a backing arch team, mail alias, or a single package with keywords.
25 Furthermore, the original committer didn't make a single commit
26 to the relevant profiles since the inception (which looks like copy-
27 paste of some other profile) and the only commits were parts of mass
28 cleanups done by other developers (stale packages, USE flags, etc.)
29
30 All that considered, I seriously doubt the work done so far has any
31 value for a future support of those arches.
32
33
34 2. Continuation on mailing list posting restrictions
35 ====================================================
36
37 We haven't enforced the gentoo-dev posting restrictions so far. I have
38 been approached by a user yesterday who wrongly thought he couldn't post
39 to the list. I think this situation is at least confusing.
40
41 I believe we should either withdraw the earlier decision and explicitly
42 announce that posting to gentoo-dev will not be restricted to avoid
43 further confusion, or enforce it (how?).
44
45 That said, I think the list has improved for now, so maybe we don't need
46 to do that after all. Especially given the upcoming possibility of
47 Proctors revival and/or moderation via mailman.
48
49 --
50 Best regards,
51 Michał Górny

Replies

Subject Author
[gentoo-project] Re: Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-02-11 Michael Palimaka <kensington@g.o>