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 1JVeHj-00085Q-IA for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 02 Mar 2008 02:50:43 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B8166E04FB; Sun, 2 Mar 2008 02:50:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vms046pub.verizon.net (vms046pub.verizon.net [206.46.252.46]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B0A7E04FB for ; Sun, 2 Mar 2008 02:50:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gw.thefreemanclan.net ([71.242.211.138]) by vms046.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0JX3000O618D3J52@vms046.mailsrvcs.net> for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Sat, 01 Mar 2008 20:50:37 -0600 (CST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gw.thefreemanclan.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B6191240CA for ; Sat, 01 Mar 2008 21:50:36 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2008 21:50:36 -0500 From: Richard Freeman Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for March In-reply-to: <20080301194555.29ecad7c@gentoo.org> To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Message-id: <47CA15FC.5070002@gentoo.org> 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: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit References: <20080301103002.A2AE266A22@smtp.gentoo.org> <47C9360A.9080806@gentoo.org> <200803011429.39223.welp@gentoo.org> <47C96B1F.9000805@gentoo.org> <47C99A1B.7020009@gentoo.org> <20080301194555.29ecad7c@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080301) X-Archives-Salt: 3419ba1a-ee46-4ae1-aac4-1518879ca372 X-Archives-Hash: 89878d0b67f3fe024f7202dca2dcbf30 Christian Faulhammer wrote: > > What we propose is proper testing and keywording by anyone > around...not just team members. > Thanks for the info - inactive maintainers are obviously a problem. Maybe the proper approach is for a more "Free-for-all" system like you suggest, with arch teams focusing on more arch-specific aspects of gentoo (such as the 32-bit libs for amd64, etc), and with arch teams having a QA oversight role for their arch. Perhaps arch teams should publish clear (and reasonably simple) policies they would like to see followed with their archs, and then devs could feel free to follow them on their own initiative. Accountability would obviously matter, but we don't want to chop off hands for first offenses, either. The Gentoo dev community is fairly closed - it isn't like just anybody can go keywording packages left and right. However, we do need to make sure that QA is followed. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list