Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Alec Warner <antarus@g.o>
To: gentoo-project <gentoo-project@l.g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-01-14
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2018 02:55:15
Message-Id: CAAr7Pr-wTvpiLiN0p96MzJJ4M5jYKV=3jt5hDz-hfXzHFWdq4A@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-01-14 by "Michał Górny"
On Sat, Jan 6, 2018 at 5:02 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:

> W dniu wto, 02.01.2018 o godzinie 14∶35 +0100, użytkownik Ulrich Mueller > napisał: > > In two weeks from now, the council will meet again. This is the time > > to raise and prepare items that the council should put on the agenda > > to discuss or vote on. > > > > Please respond to this message with agenda items. Do not hesitate to > > repeat your agenda item here with a pointer if you previously > > suggested one (since the last meeting). > > > > The agenda for the meeting will be sent out on Sunday 2018-01-07. > > > > Please reply to the gentoo-project list. > > > > I'd like to ask Council what to do about arches without arch teams. > In particular, I'm talking about the architectures whose partial support > vapier had been committing haphazardly and that do not have > corresponding projects or aliases, that is: > > nios2 > riscv > > This means that developers only see the keywords randomly appearing > in their packages but neither developers nor users have any way to > properly contact the arch team (because it doesn't exist!). >
> That said, I'd like to propose an official policy that no new arches can > be added without being assigned to a specific project (arch team). >
In general should we require people to prove a more solid base in an overlay; before admitting new arches into the main tree[1]? [1] My goal is to have a smaller main tree, so I am biased here a bit ;)
> -- > Best regards, > Michał Górny > > >