Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo's future directtion ?

[Tom Wijsman]

On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 18:20:01 -0500
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote:

> What do you do if somebody blocks progress in your overlay structure?
> You start another one.

Sounds like something that can work, survival of the [insert anything].
 
> What do you do if somebody blocks progress in the current Gentoo
> project structure?  You either ask the Council for help, or start
> another project.

Survival of the Council once the amount of projects gets nears infinity.
 
> You have just as many options under the status quo, and actually more.
>
> Now, what you would get is the ability to have more variety in quality
> standards, since general QA/etc would not apply.

Quantity and Quality rarely go together; consider how we're investing in
Quality in a time we might benefit more from Quantity, also vice versa.

> Well, then by your argument there is nothing wrong, since they're
> already in the distributed model.  There is nothing I can do about
> people feeling alienated.

We can bring attention to the overlays; eg. summarize them on the wiki.

> If you want to contribute to Gentoo, then do it.  If somebody blocks
> your progress then ask for help.
>
> What I can't stand is people moping about their feelings being hurt
> from umpteen years ago.  I can't go back and fix the past.  Get over
> it - contribute or don't.

Get born, make mistakes, learn from them, improve the future, die happy.

> The games team has ZERO power over any dev doing anything to any
> package in the tree.  That was the outcome of the most recent Council
> decision.  We didn't disband the team because we thought that having a
> team focused on games wasn't a bad idea, but so far nobody else seems
> all that interested so it seems as likely as not that there won't be a
> games team in the future.
>
> How is that not doing something radical?  What more do you want us to
> do?

Preparations for the (un)expected future we're about to experience.

> > It's not about elitist old-timers, it's about a more dynamic model
> > that has low tolerance for
> > * bugs being open since 8+ years, because no one bothers to
> > review/change stuff (check nethack bug)
> > * territorial behaviour
> > * slacking devs slacking so hard, but not stepping down
>
> The reason the nethack bug is still open is because nobody cares
> enough to fix it.  ANYBODY can make themselves a maintainer of Nethack
> right now and fix the bug.  The reason that the Nethack bug is still
> open is because you apparently care enough about it to post about it,
> but not enough to fix it.  I'm not going to fix it, because I don't
> use Nethack.
>
> The issues you bring up were an issue in the past, and nobody really
> has any tolerance for it these days.  You keep bringing up past issues
> that have been fixed, which really sounds to me like a demonstration
> that we're running out of real current issues to fix.
>
> If there is somebody blocking progress on something, by all means
> point it out.  However, it needs to be a case where somebody is
> actually trying to do something, not just complaints about all the
> great stuff that could get done if somebody cared enough to even try.

This emphasizes on a bad example from a collection of vague statements;
while we ignore that, what does it have to do with the dynamic model?

> [...] You're basically coming across as being impossible to satisfy,
> because you bring up vague complaints without anything that anybody
> can act upon, [...]

Content on gentoo-user is more likely to be demand than it is supply.