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 |