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 TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A60BB15800A for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2023 19:28:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DEA57E083B; Wed, 12 Jul 2023 19:28:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ed1-x52f.google.com (mail-ed1-x52f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52f]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C222FE083B for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2023 19:28:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ed1-x52f.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-51e2a6a3768so9190117a12.0 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2023 12:28:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gentoo-org.20221208.gappssmtp.com; s=20221208; t=1689190113; x=1691782113; h=content-transfer-encoding:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=9n2qc+bBZlvaxPkZSs+A7mIBwHGU3JImh7yIkZUw004=; b=lQDL/Rdzpfm4Ee5AAsht+sQVvs9MovhBMIwgZoySyUBRTsEvkBA/TFQNOw2UPoTkDn 21i+2blmLDClXICgiRCbqOA2UM+Q9ylzdkh6NdLB70ABvm0kxzMsmKSPOn8JU81lFGtw igs8BaO9wENPxTMcavT7UkYP8pX9k0gho/k+uiiYQGzujJR4IX1g8FgZl2I9DXjVG/O1 HrO9lEV2Ql/BR2YK/8e31Z7u1k5XhZooaqdfV1pQVK7shJh2p24yGemD3zvgLj3IYhwB A7/mF8BTQ6n4mlvqd9W3mpEO9I4270EvJTRv8uAMo4uy0TdA5KyLHNHsD/B7BqTxQII2 5q1A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1689190113; x=1691782113; h=content-transfer-encoding:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=9n2qc+bBZlvaxPkZSs+A7mIBwHGU3JImh7yIkZUw004=; b=PiY64rXIuY0gFdo21sgARHfBvqAP0FKRZ6AgiSK8iZcKILP9gEkw8Gt1PwhLqTJIqq O/+zCO+yi+BJwSJAAAOTyhAL6xLMJSMfpUk71NONNV9HsLgRxkjR+UuAGXwrPiNslGZM jO9bhUJWoomw/X/htQqrwVpIemmDY92YYOhj4ZgZfv4oaCTNcql+mhpl/oEMt9Q3X+H8 4uQjuVIEezo9AuWLzmOTLn8oRxCBEMGJzM0F0/SZjczKbEOewJYzNpz/YoP9CymMFBT4 d6gNndWfDQo0BWZYdw7gss83CTMsfqm36YMoeNssgVj4YQpf7zPBtiSpmu/5UXuXhsSj oi2A== X-Gm-Message-State: ABy/qLaXKKogyePAyYc5pBEFR+YXB/KgU710bladG1TOED5AeFH41bOa jxpssgpyYLaAKEF5CigjQUQFd47eHudjKCvJCcpMlZp+6Gl7Xb6E X-Google-Smtp-Source: APBJJlHxovIUF/xA9LfIlxWXF3thkWBKu+PC09X60T49VAicuBuxHS+bmK33VMsV/rkZua/wL3WE2KaH2HHLwRy2FcQ= X-Received: by 2002:aa7:db91:0:b0:51d:8f9b:b6ce with SMTP id u17-20020aa7db91000000b0051d8f9bb6cemr19281965edt.1.1689190113550; Wed, 12 Jul 2023 12:28:33 -0700 (PDT) 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 References: <2ZKWN4KF.MKEFFMWE.LGPKYP47@RTL7EJXF.RN4PF6UF.MDFBGF3C> <1913d3c2-5f54-acea-0ed3-930371ea1884@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <1913d3c2-5f54-acea-0ed3-930371ea1884@gentoo.org> From: Alec Warner Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 12:28:22 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Flow's Manifesto and questions for nominees (was: Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.) To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: b4adb210-1950-46bb-b99f-81e831641dbc X-Archives-Hash: d06a8489167b01fc4557b556bc2555ba On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 12:07=E2=80=AFPM Florian Schmaus = wrote: > > Apologies for not replying to everyone individually. > > I thank my fellow council candidates who took the time to reply to this > sensitive and obviously controversial matter. I understand that not > everyone feels comfortable taking a stance in this discussion. > > I asked the other council candidates about their opinion on EGO_SUM. > Unfortunately, some replies included only a rather shallow answer. A few > focused on criticism of my actions and how I approach the issue. Which > is obviously fine. I read it all and have empathy for everyone who feels > aggravated. You may or may not share the complaints. But let us focus on > the actual matter for a moment. > > Even the voices raised for a restricted reintroduction of EGO_SUM just > mention an abstract limit [1]. A concrete limit is not mentioned, > although I asked for it and provided my idea including specific limits. > Not knowing the concrete figures others have in mind makes it difficult > to find a compromise. For example, a fellow council candidate postulated > that it would be quicker for me to implement a limit-check in pkgcheck > than discuss EGO_SUM. I wish that were the case. Unfortunately it is > potentially not trivial to implement if we want such a check to be > robust. But even worse, a specific limit must be known before > implementing such a check. And we currently have none. I think my concern here is that I don't expect the Council to really 'vote on a specific limit.' The limit is an implementation detail, it can change, it shouldn't require a council vote to change. So my advice is "pick something reasonable that you think holds up to scrutiny, and implement with that" and "expect the limit to change, either because of the scrutiny, or because it might change in the future" and implement your check accordingly (so e.g. the limit is easily changeable.) > > But the real crux of an EGO_SUM reintroduction with a limit is the > following. Either the limit is too restrictive, and most packages are > affected by it and can not use EGO_SUM, which ultimately only > corresponds to the current state. Or the limit only affects a fraction > of the packages, so you should not bother having a limit. Again the idea is there is already a limit ( the aforementioned environment limit ) and one of the goals is to have a QA check that says your ebuild is approaching that limit so you can do something productive about it, as well as to avoid ebuilds that are not installable. So just implement that. If you need a number, I think "90% of the env limit" is defensible (but again, any reasonable number will do fine.) > > The deprecation of EGO_SUM was and is unnecessary, a security issue, and > was almost wholly *not* driven by technical problems. EGO_SUM should be > re-instated. > > I know that some think likewise. I also know that others disagree. The > latter group includes some prominent and visible Gentoo developers. > People to whom I am thankful for their work on Gentoo and to whom Gentoo > owes a lot. However, it is unclear what the majority of Gentoo > developers thinks. I could very well be that the consensus amongst > Gentoo developers agrees with some of my fellow council candidates and > would like to keep the current state. It would be great if we find that > out. If we had a mechanism to perform a non-binding opinion poll amongst > Gentoo developers, and if that poll turns out that the consensus is to > keep EGO_SUM deprecated, then I could save myself a lot of time and effor= t. I'm confused why you are asking about the 'consensus amongst developers' and then ask the council to vote. The council is not all developers, you just need the council to approve it. > > However, as of now, my conscience demands that I try to improve this > situation for the sake of our users. In a previous mail, I wrote that I > seek closure by asking the council to vote on that matter. And I will, > of course, accept any outcome of that vote. My impression of the situation is that: - Currently if asked, the council would likely vote no. - They have requested you implement a QA check with a limit, and if you did that, many swing voters would vote yes. My guidance from above is "implement the check with some reasonable limit" to unblock your swing voters, so they vote yes... We don't need everyone to vote on what the limit is ..it's just wasting time IMHO. -A > > - Flow > > > 1: Sorry if I have missed something. If so, then please let me know.