On Thursday 26 June 2003 14:28, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> OK, here's what I am thinking about.  While you respect that Daniel does
> not want to get into a mud slinging contest, you're asking him to.  As far
> as an account of what happened, it really makes no difference -- it's a
> point of one's word against another's word.
>
> The crux however, is that you mentioned issues that were raised.  I rather
> believe those issues are what should be addressed, rather than "he said
> this, but this is what happened" because the latter is futile, and this
> isn't Jerry Springer.
>
> So, let's get those issues which need addressing out into the open instead,
> shall we.
>
> This is going to -dev, but it's targetted mainly at the gentoo developers
> (no offense to anyone else, and your input is very much welcomed as well). 
> This is my invitation.  You can email the list or email me privately (so
> that there is confidentiality, if you're worried about that) and tell me
> your issues.  While you're at it, tell me the 3 biggest things you'd like
> to see changed, and how.
>
> You say it's about transparency, I say, if you have a gripe, voice it so it
> can be seen.  If it is not seen, it can not be addressed.  As a member of
> the gentoo leadership, this is my invitation to you.

Personally I have only one issue that could be addressed. It concerns portage. 
There are many features that portage will implement someday and that have 
allready been identified. Many of those TODO's have been there a long time. 
While I know that it is necessary to keep portage stable, and I know that 
adding features is much work, I would like to know the status of those 
features.

Paul

ps. As a suggestion, I understand that current portage might need a rewrite 
for parts. If it is not too straining a testing portage might be made to 
accommodate such a rewrite, while maintaining the current portage.

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Researcher
Mail: pauldv@cs.kun.nl
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net