| 1 |
On 07/01/2013 08:37 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: |
| 2 |
> hasufell schrieb: |
| 3 |
>>> They can each have their own ebuild in portage. I do not think that overlays |
| 4 |
>>> are the solution here. |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> That idea is so bad I hope we will never see it happen. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> That's what GLEP 39 explictly allows. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
>>>> Will that make any1 |
| 11 |
>>>> reconsider his attitude about being a maintainer and realize that it |
| 12 |
>>>> means to serve the _user_? |
| 13 |
>>> |
| 14 |
>>> No, it means to scratch an itch. |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> I think we will not improve as a distro if we do not redefine our |
| 17 |
>> priorities. |
| 18 |
>> I have the feeling that our work is not user-centered anymore, but |
| 19 |
>> developer-centered and that concept is simply wrong and no sane business |
| 20 |
>> manager would ever disagree. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> If you want a user-centric distro which is run by business managers, that |
| 23 |
> niche is already occupied. If Gentoo tried to achieve a linear user |
| 24 |
> experience, putting uniformity over diversity, then we'd just become a poor |
| 25 |
> copy of Ubuntu. Would it increase our user base? Probably. Would it still be |
| 26 |
> Gentoo? I'm not sure. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
That is wrapping words in my mouth or at least misunderstanding on |
| 31 |
purpose. Please read more carefully. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
I knew people would jump on that anecdote of business management. I was |
| 34 |
not talking about gentoo becoming a business, but about facts based on |
| 35 |
experience in the world of (free) software development which tell us to |
| 36 |
involve the user in development. That user can very well consist of |
| 37 |
specific group we are explicitly targeting, so your other point is wrong |
| 38 |
too: I did not talk about widening the userbase by putting "uniformity" |
| 39 |
over "diversity". I did not mention any of these words, you said them. I |
| 40 |
was talking about _consistency_ (at least on a certain level) and that |
| 41 |
does not necessarily conflict with diversity and does not involve |
| 42 |
changing our userbase. It does conflict with diversity at those points |
| 43 |
where people stop working together and stop discussing issues and just |
| 44 |
go their own way either by doing things against our philosophy/policy or |
| 45 |
by being stubborn/uncommunicative. |
| 46 |
That can happen in numerous ways, especially on those issues which are |
| 47 |
definitely worth _global discussion_, such as eclasses, supporting a new |
| 48 |
init-system, switching a default implementation, messing with profiles, |
| 49 |
with portage, PMS whatever. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
Did any1 in those recent discussions ask: do _our users_ actually want |
| 52 |
feature x or feature y, implementation foo or bar? |
| 53 |
If the answer is yes and it makes sense for us too, then we should not |
| 54 |
care about a minority of devs that do not like that course. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
Ofc we have our low-level principles that might not change in the |
| 57 |
forseeable future, but that does not mean we can ignore what our |
| 58 |
community thinks and circumvent conflict resolution by avoiding each |
| 59 |
other which is basically what that sounds like. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
Bringing up the word "ubuntu" in this dicussion is a really poor thing. |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
Do you hold the concept of "maintainership" over "common sense"? |
Archives