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 7A63113877A for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2014 10:53:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 553BBE0879; Tue, 8 Jul 2014 10:53:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A8BAE0857 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2014 10:53:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 868B133FD40 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2014 10:53:11 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.936 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.936 tagged_above=-999 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.282, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.652, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Sy7lL29J7WcT for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2014 10:53:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C86433FC34 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2014 10:53:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1X4T1C-0005ut-TA for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2014 12:53:02 +0200 Received: from ppp118-209-164-198.lns20.mel6.internode.on.net ([118.209.164.198]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 08 Jul 2014 12:53:02 +0200 Received: from kensington by ppp118-209-164-198.lns20.mel6.internode.on.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 08 Jul 2014 12:53:02 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Michael Palimaka Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: The request to abolish games team policy Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 20:52:49 +1000 Message-ID: References: <20140707234502.3009929a@pomiot.lan> 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-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp118-209-164-198.lns20.mel6.internode.on.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 In-Reply-To: <20140707234502.3009929a@pomiot.lan> X-Archives-Salt: c3d02628-f1cb-4123-9cb4-0100839f7bba X-Archives-Hash: 199f5deeb3ade199a6b94bf0808df2b9 On 07/08/2014 07:45 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > Dear Community, > > First of all, please do not take this personally. I don't want to > attack any member of the games team or the team in general. I respect > their experience and long-term contribution to Gentoo. However, > I strongly disagree with the policy games team has established and I > believe that their actions do not serve the best interest of Gentoo. > > I am therefore going to propose this request to the next Council. Since > this will likely require a fair amount of prior discussion, I would > like to start it already, hopefully reaching at least some point before > the appropriate Council meeting. > > > I would like to ask the Council to abolish the following policies that > have been established by the games team: > > 1. that the games team has authority over the actual maintainers > on every game ebuild, > > 2. that every ebuild has to inherit games.eclass as the last eclass > inherited [1], even if it actually increases the ebuild size rather > than helping, > > 3. that games must adhere to games team-specific install locations > and ownership rules, shortly listed in [2]. Why is Council intervention needed to abolish these policies? They're not binding. As far as I know, the games team has no special status so like any other project they can recommend whatever they want - nobody is obliged to listen (I certainly don't).