Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: hasufell <hasufell@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-08-12
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 11:50:02
In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-08-12 by Rich Freeman
1 Rich Freeman:
2 >
3 > Some options open to the council are:
4 > 1. Let the games project keep its policy, and anybody who wants to
5 > change this has to join the project and call for elections (the
6 > council can shoe-horn members onto the project if necessary).
8 You want to force-push members into a team while "preserving" the old
9 structure? That calls for trouble.
11 > 2. Directly tweak games policy but preserve the project and its
12 > scope. So, games would still have to adhere to games project policy,
13 > but the Council might change specific policies (use of eclass, group,
14 > etc).
16 That's contradictory, IMO. You are practically telling the games team
17 "your policies suck, so we just changed them". That doesn't really mean
18 they preserve their scope.
20 > 3. Restrict the games project scope, such as giving it authority if
21 > the package maintainer elects to put it in the games herd.
23 This calls for trouble as well and will cause massive inconsistency.
25 > 4. Do nothing.
26 >
28 Pretty common these days, but what about
30 5. Have undertakers check for slacking project leads and accept related
31 complaints. If a project has a slacking lead, then the project should be
32 given a (long) deadline to fix it. If they don't fix it, then they
33 should be disbanded. A project cannot function properly without an
34 active lead (unless the project structure defines that there is no lead
35 anyway).


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-08-12 Rich Freeman <rich@××××××××××××××.net>