Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call For Agenda Items - 10 Jun 2014

[Rich Freeman]

On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Brian Dolbec <dolsen@g.o> wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jun 2014 12:06:35 -0400
> Richard Yao <ryao@g.o> wrote:
>>
>> I think we should define a minimum amount of time before new EAPIs may
>> be introduced to the portage tree. 2 years seems reasonable.
>>
>
> That likely won't work.  Plus I believe it is already set at a minimum
> of 1 year, with the possibility for exceptions to be approved by
> council.  But if the ideas and patches to implement them are not done,
> it could be many years before final approval.

I put it on the agenda, but my two cents:

New EAPIs require council approval already.  Setting a policy (like
this one - not speaking generally) on what the council is allowed to
do requires council approval.  Changing such a policy around what the
council is allowed to do requires council approval.  Making a one-time
exception to the policy the council set for itself requires council
approval.

So, I don't really get the point.  The council is basically telling
itself not to do something unless it thinks it should do it anyway.
It is a bit like Congress saying that a congressional pay raise should
require congressional approval when every one to-date has had it
anyway.

If we were arguing that new EAPIs should require a vote of all devs or
something I could at least see that as a policy that actually means
something, though I'd disagree with it.

That said, both proposals around EAPI limitations really just describe
what we're already trending towards.  The council has already
deprecated some EAPIs to keep the count down, and it looks like in
this entire term the most we're doing is giving a thumbs-up to the
general content of EAPI6 without actually giving it a final approval
(it still requires implementation).

So, we're not exactly trending towards drowning in EAPIs.  Just my two
cents - feel free to change my mind...

Rich