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 4.43) id 1ECAT9-0002NI-KV for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 05 Sep 2005 06:28:40 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j856PCgq016710; Mon, 5 Sep 2005 06:25:12 GMT Received: from hermes.orakel.ods.org (dsl67-66.fastxdsl.nl [62.251.66.67]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j856PBuS031327 for ; Mon, 5 Sep 2005 06:25:11 GMT Received: from aphrodite.orakel.ods.org ([172.17.2.15]) by hermes.orakel.ods.org with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.50) id 1ECASh-0007Zn-8L for gentoo-osx@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 05 Sep 2005 08:28:15 +0200 Message-ID: <431BE578.8040109@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 08:28:08 +0200 From: Grobian Organization: Gentoo Foundation User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.0+ (Macintosh/20050813) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-osx@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-osx@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-osx@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-osx] Arch Testing Policy and Procedures References: <87387351-FB42-4D57-8602-8FFC0794DE40@gentoo.org> <431AD2FE.3020706@gentoo.org> <2436D2AF-C880-4636-9E3B-F1761795A929@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed X-Content-Scanned: by hermes.orakel.ods.org (Exim Exiscan) using SpamAssassin and ClamAV Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by robin.gentoo.org id j856PChI016710 X-Archives-Salt: 681dca3d-3e33-441f-a441-9d39cd3aba37 X-Archives-Hash: f5362107081ee082eb8166fdc5bbbfb4 Kito wrote: >> Additionally, a lot of developers choose to work on long-term projects= =20 >> in an overlay and thus don't necessarily commit things to the portage=20 >> tree proper on a regular basis. >=20 > Who is working on what where when? funny you ask >=20 >> >> This being said, there are a good number of inactive developers. In a=20 >> previous e-mail on this thread, Hasan and I explained our inability to= =20 >> take care of this problem without assuming the "Lead" position. Since=20 >> there were no direct objections to our taking this position >=20 > I think I have to object. Kito has it's own concerns, I like to focus on another side of this=20 issue. Besides that I think a dual headed lead is retarded, I like to=20 point at the literature. Think of some big management gurus, like=20 Mintzberg (could I mention another name instantly?), Davenport, etc.=20 they all say the same: a lead (or manager) is assingned from above, and=20 comes from a herd the to be lead herd is not familiar with. In other=20 words: yes, we are in need of a lead, but he or she will come from=20 another team. For example a senior dev from the mips or whatever herd. Ok, why you say, simple. Noone will accept a lead from his/hers own=20 team. Simple as that. It works like that in the real world. It's hard=20 for the lead and hard for the people to be lead. Hard because you used=20 to be on the same level, and had chats/whatever on the works as being a=20 'worker', now suddenly that co-worker is going to tell you what to do.=20 And maybe you don't like it. You used to be able to have arguments, now=20 you're just supposed to cooperate. You can throw up the "this is voluntary work" and stuff, but that's the=20 whole reason why it doesn't work, IMHO. People are too free. Charity=20 work is being directed too. "You are free to do as we tell you", [1]=20 and if you don't want that, go look for some other charity work. Of=20 course, it would be nice if a discussion with the lead is allowed. If Mike Frysinger would jump in today or tomorrow, here in this team,=20 we'd have to listen to "OSX sucks" all day long, but also "if we do it=20 like this, then it works, even on osx". IMHO, this is the danger, and=20 progress that's not here. The guy is great in making decisions on his=20 own. Out of scope for the discussion whether those decisions are=20 correct. He makes Gentoo (as a whole) move. > The g/fbsd team is waaaaaaay farther along than we are, and they still=20 > have 0 official docs/policies/etc. I don't believe that to be a=20 > coincidence. Maybe we should as a team be more than 'interested' in what Dieg=F2 does.= .. > http://cia.navi.cx/stats/author/ and bugs.g.o are fairly telling.= .. Thanks, I didn't know of that one. Most useful. >> Again, please don't confuse lack of commits with lack of=20 >> participation. Also note that we have only a handful of active=20 >> developers. Once we agree upon policy for inactivity, we can make some= =20 >> progress with weeding out those that are not contributing. >=20 > I haven't been too active in commits lately myself...RL,work and troubl= e=20 > with the 'big picture' of the project has slowed me down... Somehow, the point of my comment is completely missed. I don't know=20 exactly what Kito is working on at the moment, and I don't know at all=20 what Hasan and Lina are working on, but I know they are doing=20 'something', and every once in a while they show some sign of life.=20 There are around 15 (fifteen!) people associated to the ppc-macos team,=20 it seems. Then from those 15, are only mentioned 3 plus myself active?=20 That is the question I put on the table. People that once signed up=20 or where dragged into this project. Where are they, do they even think=20 of ppc-macos, or can we just clear them out (with devrel help?) and make=20 clear what the team consist of? > I guess I don't work on macos stuff? I feel like I've been fairly vocal= =20 > as to what I am / will be working on. Again, I was not after you, or Hasan, or Lina. Though, I think I know a=20 little bit what's your road, as we discussed it a few times. > I think ATs are a great idea, but work better with a larger dev/user=20 > base. We couldn't even keep up with the bugs/patches/requests/reports=20 > submitted by our existing small base of users. The notion of 'not=20 > checking the ATs work' seems very odd, if an active dev is merely a=20 > proxy for a users work, that user should just be mentored and become an= =20 > official dev. In the light of GLEP 40, I think we should come up with a different name=20 for our AT, because it doesn't match what the GLEP 40 AT means. If we=20 ever happen to GLEP our AT, we will have a number > 40, hence we need=20 another term. I think the difference can be said to be that the AT proposal here=20 assumes an AT to work on ~arch, while the GLEP assumes an AT to work on=20 arch. The GLEP proposal is interesting for us, because it discusses our=20 'stabling' problems from an x86 world. [1] Adam Freeland - We Want Your Soul - Freeland Records --=20 Fabian Groffen Gentoo for Mac OS X --=20 gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list