Re: [gentoo-project] Council meeting 2016-03-13

[Alexis Ballier]

On Thursday, March 10, 2016 11:41:21 PM CET, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 10. März 2016, 20:19:11 schrieb Alexis Ballier:
>> Well, you can go into the debate whether perfectly working and needed
>> behavior predating PMS which EAPI0 was supposed to normalize is a PMS bug
>> or a portage bug,
>
> And this type of argumentation is *exactly* the reason why I am bringing up
> the agenda topic.
>
> Either we have a specification (and then we should either stick to it or
> improve it) or we don't. Still regularly coming up with "blah blah this was
> before PMS, serious infighting between devs, portage was
> perfectly fine, no I
> won't fix anything" after 8 (EIGHT) years is not an option anymore.


This was clear since the beginning and by cutting my reasonning in the 
middle you don't get the point *AT ALL*...

If you want the council to state that having a spec that does not match 
reality or reality that does not adhere to the spec is bad, then why not, 
but that sounds like stating the obvious since this is the definition of a 
spec that was approved years ago and for which council already stated the 
need for it even before.


> The main reason for the deadline proposal is that maintainers get their
> backsides moving.
>
> Yes one possible fix indeed is a PMS improvement, we all know this probably
> will surpass all deadline time requirements.
>
> However, if there is no motion in an issue AT ALL, the deadline
> should make it
> possible to bypass maintainers and delegate a solution to QA at
> some point. No
> more stalling.


You seem to assume that in all the issues there's an evil person blocking 
improvements. In all the examples I pointed out, nobody is blocking 
anything, the lack of proper solution is.

A deadline does not help moving forward, that's doing the work that does...


Alexis.