From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-02-11
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 18:32:57 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1517247177.1187.12.camel@gentoo.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <23149.51865.998621.918722@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de>
W dniu nie, 28.01.2018 o godzinie 14∶05 +0100, użytkownik Ulrich Mueller
napisał:
> In two weeks from now, the council will meet again. This is the time
> to raise and prepare items that the council should put on the agenda
> to discuss or vote on.
>
> Please respond to this message with agenda items. Do not hesitate to
> repeat your agenda item here with a pointer if you previously
> suggested one (since the last meeting).
>
I can think of two past items that need our attention:
1. Continuation on status of nios2/riscv.
=========================================
The bug has gotten no attention so far from the person adding those
keywords. If he doesn't show any sign of good faith in the next two
weeks, I think we should vote for removing the arch along with
the relevant profiles.
For the record: nios2 was added in Apr 2015, riscv in Aug 2015. Neither
has a backing arch team, mail alias, or a single package with keywords.
Furthermore, the original committer didn't make a single commit
to the relevant profiles since the inception (which looks like copy-
paste of some other profile) and the only commits were parts of mass
cleanups done by other developers (stale packages, USE flags, etc.)
All that considered, I seriously doubt the work done so far has any
value for a future support of those arches.
2. Continuation on mailing list posting restrictions
====================================================
We haven't enforced the gentoo-dev posting restrictions so far. I have
been approached by a user yesterday who wrongly thought he couldn't post
to the list. I think this situation is at least confusing.
I believe we should either withdraw the earlier decision and explicitly
announce that posting to gentoo-dev will not be restricted to avoid
further confusion, or enforce it (how?).
That said, I think the list has improved for now, so maybe we don't need
to do that after all. Especially given the upcoming possibility of
Proctors revival and/or moderation via mailman.
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-01-29 17:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-01-28 13:05 [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-02-11 Ulrich Mueller
2018-01-29 17:32 ` Michał Górny [this message]
2018-01-30 10:02 ` [gentoo-project] " Michael Palimaka
2018-04-11 13:46 ` Raymond Jennings
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1517247177.1187.12.camel@gentoo.org \
--to=mgorny@gentoo.org \
--cc=gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox