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 892B5138350 for ; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 09:43:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5AB13E091D; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 09:43:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.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 32FBBE0919 for ; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 09:43:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from enyo.lan (62-11-77-204.dialup.tiscali.it [62.11.77.204]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: lu_zero) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C929634EECD for ; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 09:43:34 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] rfc: comrel changes To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org References: <20200217161812.GA5969@linux1.home> <441737a3d1c0efdfc9f95b1cb1fde47b0f55d58f.camel@gentoo.org> <7fe6be7b-5e44-3171-1b60-1ef14de1be5a@gentoo.org> From: Luca Barbato Message-ID: <1393b495-eafe-4091-0eab-9301d817f7cc@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 10:43:31 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:73.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/73.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: e1e11dcd-8b4e-4d2e-858e-2cb3994fa071 X-Archives-Hash: 758201763b88fb5ecce183b319076415 On 21/02/2020 10:38, Michał Górny wrote: > On Fri, 2020-02-21 at 10:26 +0100, Luca Barbato wrote: >> On 21/02/2020 10:19, Michał Górny wrote: >>> All things considered, maybe creating a separate 'revision' group would >>> be better, independently of the reports. Either split ComRel in two, or >>> appoint something independent. Let 'core' ComRel do their work, while >>> the 'revision' group merely monitor their activities without getting >>> directly involved in the process. >>> >> >> That would be a good idea in general, but shall we keep in mind that >> comrel activity should be 0 most of the time? >> > > I don't see that as really relevant here. If it wasn't clear, I meant > that the 'revision' group would have access to all bugs and mails. Its > main purpose would be to raise the alarm if ComRel doesn't seem to do > their work properly. > > That said, I'm not claiming that this will make any real difference > in practice. I guess it could end up in having ComRel-A with their own > opinion vs. ComRel-B with their own opinion. > That's another kind of problem. I guess we should try to unpack a bit what's comrel about. lu