From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org)
by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
(envelope-from <gentoo-project+bounces-2043-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
id 1ShS3Y-0004pn-H4
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 21:03:16 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 12D6621C024
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 21:03:14 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-ob0-f181.google.com (mail-ob0-f181.google.com [209.85.214.181])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAB1CE07CC
for <gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 19:30:58 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by obbup19 with SMTP id up19so7383225obb.40
for <gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 12:30:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to
:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:user-agent;
bh=46J18aLsk/Zws8mEDs6dgkmvsjgZHv5doCmafi4Y4+w=;
b=SZYo76naMh7oyVXYPatnQVPK1o05RUpD0N7Go/vWBzkejM43Xx6de9FJt1OqKRQejB
blLxb4LGUOw9qFvgefHAIBdh9jYNQZ9nLCspJk6q3Yi8wv2uIvFkstUVO33lwNTSrYC+
cXnYNxqnQv7I77ycZy7UTzXDUUmzjUvWbcPFukRsU+1Z7U9frN8tX6DpwLgJ/uE6PS1T
M3yhRfddcgrVjThKxH6gofPy/qWFCBXo9GrP1JOvx3jjrW+bHCPkJUP4cdlifRZIV8Gz
zdziMktxED24dikFLBZUVarV3A1tzoJ36cfTv6Q4cVw24VqDCUTnuRs8iLEYRdIHPNws
CifA==
Received: by 10.182.38.66 with SMTP id e2mr25059749obk.31.1340220658104;
Wed, 20 Jun 2012 12:30:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from linux1 (cpe-76-187-77-158.tx.res.rr.com. [76.187.77.158])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id s9sm14018327obn.1.2012.06.20.12.30.56
(version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
Wed, 20 Jun 2012 12:30:57 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: William Hubbs <w.d.hubbs@gmail.com>
Received: by linux1 (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 20 Jun 2012 14:30:56 -0500
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 14:30:56 -0500
From: William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: [gentoo-project] My Manifesto
Message-ID: <20120620193056.GA9201@linux1>
Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-project+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-project+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-project+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list <gentoo-project.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="9jxsPFA5p3P2qPhR"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Archives-Salt: 328c328e-5d57-4385-9760-117c28fdb794
X-Archives-Hash: ffe46652e9bd0d84425ee7b8f4f39a97
--9jxsPFA5p3P2qPhR
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
1. I believe the council should only be asked to make a decision on an
issue when the issue cannot be settled by the community itself. As it
has been said by others, the council should do what it can to stay out
of the way of innovations, which should come from the developers.
2. When the council is asked to make a decision, it should be fully
informed about both sides of the issue before it votes. On the other
hand, the council should not block progress by taking an extremely long
time to make a decision.
3. I believe we can learn from the past, and improve upon it. Continuing
to do things like we have in the past is not a bad thing in itself.
However, using what we have done in the past to block change can be. I
understand that people are used to doing things a certain way. However,
that alone is not justification for continuing to do things the same way
in the future. if we need to make a change, we should make sure that
change is backward compatible with what we have, or if this is not
possible, provides the smoothest possible transition for our users.
Since the council doesn't maintain all of the packages, the council is
not going to know the technical details of how to make either of these
happen, so I don't feel that the council should mandate specific
implementations.
--9jxsPFA5p3P2qPhR
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAk/iJPAACgkQblQW9DDEZTjI3wCgrL7FqDtOujSO5Jcf8HBazdfy
pKoAn0XhDOQdB+sXuG+Ba76QadMUrKk2
=g6qm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--9jxsPFA5p3P2qPhR--