From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A47DD13877A for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2014 06:28:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B2A60E0937; Wed, 9 Jul 2014 06:28:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ve0-f180.google.com (mail-ve0-f180.google.com [209.85.128.180]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC024E090F for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2014 06:28:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ve0-f180.google.com with SMTP id jw12so6608972veb.25 for ; Tue, 08 Jul 2014 23:28:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=O8ABwISbvIRmAA1nj2wi1pb+zl3ZBJ1udHTc6SDHI4Q=; b=p+8Zkc/asFR6uasRCj3gdUUwPaJyDazKUGHCTsqE+tArcGtQhoad51QofJaTc+YgIn EmuaIBilQhW3Ag0VmoJV0CfkLCP5tOTM/ceHaDWhAva4bIZXR3+kkIbZVl6eqJFiRs5O Vr0JiFQ6193pGPqBM8wWC7E+SVkN6u21D4uEAfdomsoMREnbREMBnSSELy4129GeH5A4 hT1YIDMTHnEVEqZORNa49Q/FdfPzCigZJ6zjQPAYWMkm1z6OXmfDCog2YgfGbJbjBsWH tedri6AdB51QhxLxbCwjstaUdzANktWpOFeLiha1OEDNi8Har5WzJrKpxDtvsqgz/bNy Ebwg== 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 X-Received: by 10.220.69.68 with SMTP id y4mr37675141vci.21.1404887290019; Tue, 08 Jul 2014 23:28:10 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.52.72.19 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Jul 2014 23:28:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <53BCBD4A.3020909@gentoo.org> References: <20140707234502.3009929a@pomiot.lan> <20140708133859.3bc01349@pomiot.lan> <53BC0CCA.4000702@gentoo.org> <53BCBD4A.3020909@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 02:28:09 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: hA8h5i8huNbHKi2yDQNRyGoaufc Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The request to abolish games team policy From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: 6df73575-beac-48d9-ae5a-6c1d76257f32 X-Archives-Hash: 9d1c4e21410e2fb4658363d37f678c97 On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 11:55 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote: > > On 08/07/14 19:17, Michael Palimaka wrote: >> On 07/09/2014 01:22 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote: >>> And some personal thoughts about the initial proposal... >>> I don't care about the suggestion 3. in mgorny's proposal at all, but 1. >>> and 2. should definately >>> stay as is. >> What authority does the game team have over anything? Did it get special >> blessing from the Council? Isn't it just another regular project as per >> GLEP 39? > > Not everything we have had since-always-standing is documented, > unfortunately -- games has always been special from others > Still, even if it's undocumented, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist Figuring out whether it was ever supposed to have that kind of authority isn't quite as important as figuring out whether we still want it to. Other types of packages seem to get by just fine without them (even system packages). Why treat games differently than other types of packages? We don't use /usr/X11R6 despite that being in FHS right alongside /usr/games. If we do want it to have special authority then governance matters more. However, it would be far simpler to just treat games the way we treat everything else. Is there a reason not to? Rich