Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo part II.

[Patrick Lauer <gentoo@toso-digitals.de>]

On Tue, 2003-07-15 at 15:20, cal@calevans.com wrote:

> Seriously John, you made some well thought out, eloquent but
> in-appropriate suggestions.  Yes, we need organization but not the top
> heavy beast you are proposing.  I have carefully read the new structure
I agree. Debian has been named as an example of what not to be.Gentoo
has a fast, dynamic and slightly uncontrolled development at the moment,
and I want it to remain like that. Voting etc. seems a bit extreme to
me, the discussions on the mailinglists are working at the moment, so
why change?

> that is being implements and it seems to me to be the bare minimum
> necessary to keep the project moving.  And IMHO that should be the measure
> of any government's size.
Well, maybe a tiny bit more, a kind of global TODO-list would be interesting. 
The project needs a focus, otherwise nothing gets done. 

In my opinion, most devs don't want to be put in a bureaucratical straightjacket,
so let's not scare away the biggest asset of this project, which is the 
developer community.



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list