From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1K7xFh-0003pg-8V for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 15 Jun 2008 18:46:57 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DE806E0346; Sun, 15 Jun 2008 18:46:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com (wx-out-0506.google.com [66.249.82.224]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B478AE0346 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2008 18:46:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i28so1940704wxd.10 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2008 11:46:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:subject :message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer:mime-version :content-type; bh=ZJCzYUcky2eBBu9edpg37UYzUrv5fKKsowhiZk7Vy98=; b=WvEMCYE0p0rPe1yHICLhengUGebhzqfxS2Oex/Uz4Pck7AFfFLyHUESna0iidjrOxz 3FHj8w/16lr+dvKojhjLNPIPEJXTXL/rTHhz1jyjJ/CUl24L9b9ALeo7QxXhRKtbXofq ZhMczy0tnUfUw7o+Jdy1SQocj/tCtACuBNouo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer :mime-version:content-type; b=UZQnX2GmcDpg9Qj2kugsqYKsnn1YEW8T5l4ntawFEHbEG+rsXWiZw4/LUOrGKad1Hf rDHRAYRJAf8zYOSk6ftlAj0o/2vcM992PeRKmXfP1BR/QRRTwwJBXw7urIJMajk3TjR5 oqthIR7Blzc8SF4Lau97bMm+XuhEYZyryHUL8= Received: by 10.70.113.5 with SMTP id l5mr6512416wxc.69.1213555615224; Sun, 15 Jun 2008 11:46:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ( [213.121.151.206]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id h11sm6950559wxd.1.2008.06.15.11.46.53 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 15 Jun 2008 11:46:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 19:46:45 +0100 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June] Message-ID: <20080615194645.73bfe469@googlemail.com> In-Reply-To: <1213554456.28106.84.camel@camobap> References: <20080611070618.54E4066E24@smtp.gentoo.org> <20080611215827.GB7074@comet> <1213540950.16905.149.camel@camobap> <20080615155052.3376fd83@googlemail.com> <1213554456.28106.84.camel@camobap> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.4.0 (GTK+ 2.12.9; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/tV.g=LVq+giuD+5=D03Lfaa"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1 X-Archives-Salt: 774eef82-ac19-4a43-9f7f-7b478fbc54c2 X-Archives-Hash: f839aad8871d25492f341a12aa2ed20a --Sig_/tV.g=LVq+giuD+5=D03Lfaa Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 22:27:35 +0400 Peter Volkov wrote: > > How would a voting system be better than the current "if anyone > > doesn't like it, don't commit it until whatever they don't like is > > fixed" process? >=20 > Voting makes the process converging. It helps to avoid same arguments > in the next cycle of discussions. If you failed to find arguments and > convince majority - you have to live with decision which you don't > agree with. Please point to specific examples of discussions we've had so far regarding patches for PMS where a consensus has not been reached without having to resort to voting. > > Do you think that the differences between the proportion of patches > > from 'Paludis people' that are accepted or rejected and the > > proportion of patches from 'Portage people' or 'Pkgcore people' > > indicates a problem? >=20 > No. Part of the problem is that working group on PMS does not include > developers from other PMs. Every patch submitted by developers of other PMs has been accepted. > > I'm curious as to why you think the actively contributing members > > of the PMS team aren't acting in Gentoo's interests, though. >=20 > Actually I don't think so. That's why I don't want to dismiss PMS and > I'm looking how to make it "official". PMS is already an official Gentoo project. > how we can call PMS "official" if none of Gentoo portage gurus voiced > to support it? The people who know Portage and ebuilds best, and who are most aware of the implications of PMS, aren't the Portage developer. Have a read of bug 222721 if you want a perfect example. > And if portage developers are not interested in PMS I don't think > council could do something besides trying to convince them or until > new portage developer arise and fix/approve PMS... =EF=BB=BFYou know the > rules: want to change things happen in Gentoo - became active > developer. In this case you have to became active portage developer. Most of the difficult bits of PMS have an awful lot to do with ebuilds and very little to do with Portage. The Portage developer is more interested in doing other things, and there's no reason to hold PMS up until another person can be given the "Portage developer" label. --=20 Ciaran McCreesh --Sig_/tV.g=LVq+giuD+5=D03Lfaa Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkhVY5gACgkQ96zL6DUtXhH/CQCfeZcsbh6V/WdCIRARcJc8rlsm vl4AnAkGFTBK2/Rs1+hMGgWJ/qLcj9La =5vK4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/tV.g=LVq+giuD+5=D03Lfaa-- -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list