On Fri, 01 Aug 2014 21:27:04 +0300
Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:

> The workflow seems to have been...
> 
> 1. Declare dynamic deps a /bug/
> 2. Tell people it will be disabled by force, without getting council
> involved, and be quite rude about it...
> 3. Work on some replacement for the feature, development done mostly
> silently,
>     in a way most people didn't even know about it
> 
> When it should have been...
> 
> 1. Work on some replacement for the feature, announce some design
> specifics of it in the ML, and explain it will be the replacement for
> the dynamic deps
>    which will be disabled as redudant. Get people involved with good
> spirits.
> 
> (The above message is written as approx. and is not to be taken
> literally or as an offense of anykind. Just saying
> there was no need to get people up in arms if the plan was to provide
> replacing feature all along.)

These workflows declare that we need a replacement, but that is not
necessarily the plan; thus this workflow is a misrepresentation and
just one possible scenario. Not sure about "up in arms" but most of the
scenario has so far been discussion giving rise to ideas and motions.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D