From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7528E1387FD for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2014 11:32:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 203B9E0B04; Sun, 30 Mar 2014 11:32:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3192DE0933 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2014 11:32:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.3.7] (cpe-74-77-145-97.buffalo.res.rr.com [74.77.145.97]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: blueness) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1667933FDCF for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2014 11:32:00 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <533800DA.6000604@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2014 07:32:42 -0400 From: "Anthony G. Basile" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 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 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-04-08 References: <53342A5F.70903@gentoo.org> <5336D386.6080609@opensource.dyc.edu> <20140329143634.GA31923@laptop.home> <201403300012.55229.dilfridge@gentoo.org> <20140330003709.GA733@laptop.home> <20140330022034.GA1151@laptop.home> <5337F95A.2060808@gentoo.org> <20140330132203.48137283@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <20140330132203.48137283@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 965362e3-6863-439d-ac25-72e7e2a3e649 X-Archives-Hash: f08f77befac74ebd4b0f34c0e8b8658e On 03/30/2014 07:22 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 07:00:42 -0400 > "Anthony G. Basile" wrote: > >> While implementing a new policy may not be the right approach (or so >> I'm hearing from the community), I can bring forward at least 3 >> examples of significant changes that were not discussed. I don't >> think I would have difficulty convincing people of this fact. If we >> do not enact policy then how is this problem addressed? >> >> As far as "driving people away" I will shift my efforts to >> recruiting. I am a professor and can get more students into Gentoo >> development. We cannot adopt a de facto situation where devs can >> misbehave because they are indispensable. > Had a whole conversation with WilliamH about this; my viewpoint after > that conversation has changed, it isn't anymore to just go for the > policy, but it boils down that there are multiple options to pick from: > > 1) you fix it on the technical level, by introducing policy; > > 2) you fix it on the personal level, by improving relations; > > 3) you do nothing, letting people burn out in personal quibblings. > > Maybe more options exist, I dunno. > > Each option then has its advantages and disadvantages, a pick: > > 1) Advantage: You prevent the concerns altogether. You get useful > feedback on what you're planning to commit. > > Disadvantage: The loudest people can stall progress. People who > disagree speak more than people than acknowledge it, even if > there is a fifty-fifty situation it's hard to tell how to > proceed; that leads to less progress than without discussion. > > 2) Advantage: Improved communication. > > Disadvantage: You'll need to be though to get people to improve; > as Anthony highlights, people currently are indispensable. The > way to fix that is get more people, if you can get more people. > > 3) Advantage: People learn through burning out to work together; > because well, reverting and/or whatsoever yields no progress. > > Disadvantage: A personal quibbling every week or so. Mood drops. > > There are other (dis)advantage to these things; but I'm just saying, > whatever solution we pick, we must be well aware of the goal as well a > the consequence of that solution. And there's no way to pick no > solution; because doing so, you'll pick the current (3) by default. > > That being said, these things come up due to a series of minor events > over the last week; they all turn out to not be huge breakage, > however ... what if one day someone commits something much worse? > > We do our best to mitigate the situation in that case; however, I hope > that these cases don't become the habit, but rather the exception. > > So far, we've been doing fine though; but seeing that some things get > committed where unintended side effects happen, it is still a worry. > No there is another issue: you don't get good design in isolation. At least one of the issues that was not discussed until too late has a design flaw. The same arrogance that leads people to think "I know what I'm doing" leads people to think "I don't need to discuss this with others". -- Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] E-Mail : blueness@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA