From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 574FA138334 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 21:26:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8B954E08AE; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 21:26:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (mail.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42535E08A5 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 21:26:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pomiot (d202-252.icpnet.pl [109.173.202.252]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mgorny) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ED2093465DC; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 21:26:28 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <5b0f4a1724e2ff94e5bf359dbc27097462af4043.camel@gentoo.org> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Why aren't GSoC projects affecting ::gentoo discussed on regular mls? From: =?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_G=C3=B3rny?= To: gentoo-dev Cc: Benda Xu , Andrew Savchenko , jsbronder@gentoo.org Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 23:26:24 +0200 Organization: Gentoo Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-d40ElwrdRzyEs9LPnUyw" User-Agent: Evolution 3.30.5 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 X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Archives-Salt: ed0b9f0d-16e9-43d5-90c3-862ddc6a8258 X-Archives-Hash: a6f543c47499e8dd876bc22c81d8edae --=-d40ElwrdRzyEs9LPnUyw Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable (GSoC project mentors in CC) Hi, I would like to ask our this year's GSoC mentors a single question: why weren't the GSoC proposals given proper discussion on our regular mailing lists *before* they were accepted? I can understand that most developers in Gentoo don't really care about GSoC. However, both projects we have this year [1] involve major changes to ::gentoo that -- by policy -- require prior RFC. In case of the BLAS/LAPACK project there was a RFC *after* the project was accepted, that was never fully answered. In case of the MPI project, I'm not aware of any public RFC or announcement. I believe such decisions put all of us in a very bad position. There is a major work going on, almost secretly. In the end, we will either be forced to accept the result even if it doesn't meet our expectations, or reject it and turn GSoC into some kind of grotesque situation. The former is of course unacceptable from my point of view. It would mean that one or two developers are able to abuse paid programs such as GSoC to unilaterally push their preferences into Gentoo. We would be forced to accept them unconditionally just because 'it's a done deal'. The latter means the students has wasted their summer doing work that's not going anywhere. This is certainly demotivating and a bad PR for Gentoo. I suppose it also reduces our chance of getting into GSoC again, if Google finds out that GSoC is spent on code going to trash. So, again, why do single developers unilaterally decide on which projects third party money is spent, and never bother discussing whether those projects are really applicable beforehand? [1] https://summerofcode.withgoogle.com/organizations/6416323580526592/ --=20 Best regards, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny --=-d40ElwrdRzyEs9LPnUyw Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQGTBAABCgB9FiEEx2qEUJQJjSjMiybFY5ra4jKeJA4FAl0T4wFfFIAAAAAALgAo aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldEM3 NkE4NDUwOTQwOThEMjhDQzhCMjZDNTYzOUFEQUUyMzI5RTI0MEUACgkQY5ra4jKe JA4CUQf/aBnoDYqcMLX70BQsj8vh+dcpzECSfTXQCn7DoFUOtrmH6PzQdfMT1QoT vANnvRbyj7RfJqrHKp1rAbKxAKJBWERvCZFps+AojzqwfXCt4DSBA7NxRZhqGlHY 5sA5jqjeIMXRbofjJcxSaLR6+BUiT4iS4Hni8CTgK7ruquYrwzdqxDOcEMdo/kc5 Mn+nUZxlG/jGj2+725SmgsXKklekJftwhAJOSzHJ2b4hOhm4LTqqMw4SxQ2+nKM3 L+PW+PeDmNfKKuvRROPz6o7ZNxJvSGXoz6aLexnp7UsNOPcFKuBDz/nRCNn5Tdbu qfZFsC2sFNnqspla5CbvmbPkXOaiDQ== =lTc4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-d40ElwrdRzyEs9LPnUyw--