From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1HbfPM-0006Pp-R3 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 11 Apr 2007 16:10:57 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l3BG9LHv004269; Wed, 11 Apr 2007 16:09:21 GMT Received: from spunkymail-a2.g.dreamhost.com (sd-green-bigip-177.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.177]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l3BG5pmN031606 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2007 16:05:52 GMT Received: from [192.168.2.26] (c-67-180-39-52.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.180.39.52]) by spunkymail-a2.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B55F987BE1 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2007 09:05:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <461D077B.70501@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 09:06:19 -0700 From: Alec Warner User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (X11/20061225) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] [RFC] New metastructure proposal References: <20070410193249.GD7991@ubik> <9e0cf0bf0704101405t1be5698ekc2967284cbecac7d@mail.gmail.com> <1176304730.8755.64.camel@inertia.twi-31o2.org> In-Reply-To: <1176304730.8755.64.camel@inertia.twi-31o2.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: a183e5c3-cc0f-491b-bb75-ba79207aa393 X-Archives-Hash: d03b1edc1752d0c9bfa8141dbb628c87 Chris Gianelloni wrote: >> I think people are leaving because a lack of direction. > > I also agree here, but only to an extent. > To quantify my earlier statement. There is no ability to say 'this is something Gentoo should dedicate resources to' vs. 'this is something that is outside the scope of what Gentoo is trying to do'. I feel this way because I have no idea 'what Gentoo is trying to do'. Gentoo has no scope and thus any idea is basically good to go. Someone can launch Seeds and work on it (which they are free to do regardless of whether it's a Gentoo Project) and there is really nothing you can do about it except point out the technical merits and pitfalls. But does something like seeds fit into the scope of Gentoo? Does SCIRE, another project I love, fit into the scope of Gentoo? Does having a tree with many unmaintained packages fit into the scope of Gentoo? Does having a tree with every package in existence fit into the scope of Gentoo? These are the things that I see argued about often; do you try to add tons of packages? Do you try to remove packages? Do you try to keep a balance. Why does the tree contain unmaintained and broken packages? Why does no (developer) care? Do you cater to users? Do you cater to ourselves? Do you target the desktop? Do you target embedded users? Do you target servers? Do you target 'release early, release often' or do you target stability and QA? Some of these goals are opposites of each other. Many developers only care about one or the other or none. This is where I'd love for the council to lead. If we care about QA then I'd expect to see some developers leave, because they don't care about QA at all. If we go for a tree that contains maintained and 'good/well-known' packages I'd expect people to leave and create something bigger than sun-rise with every package known to man in it. I think when people talk about splitting up Gentoo, this is a piece of what they are referring to. > I agree that we need a formal hierarchy, but must protest that the > current Council doesn't lead. The problem is that every time we *try* > to lead, we get a ton of developer backlash, which leads to things like > this proposal to try to reduce the Council's ability to lead. So which > is it? Do people want the Council to lead or not? If the answer is no, > then why do we even *have* a Council? >> Is there any vision? > > Of course there is some vision. The Council has plenty of ideas and > lots of ways where we can lead Gentoo. Why don't we? Because, quite > frankly, we're sick of the miles of bullshit attached to every single > minor decision made. I'm speaking not for every member of the Council, > but from my own perceptions and from the grumblings I've heard from many > other Council members during conversations. I don't recall hearing about lots of anything. I don't claim to having read every meeting log however. -Alec -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list