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 37BC11381F3 for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 11:18:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A5393E086E; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 11:18:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ve0-f174.google.com (mail-ve0-f174.google.com [209.85.128.174]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0994CE0856 for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 11:18:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ve0-f174.google.com with SMTP id oz10so2975482veb.5 for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 04:18:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=eSlec3vbh7mqxdzSISvcoXvCUdXTFLQm9BCyrS6vejE=; b=rzFeAXPO34LKa3eIPptSu5WZ6RUEP3B2bbpAg3yYiOreXyP45uQ6ICh36EQYz1giGP wxI4W3e16k3BUAELb6Mv9P/A5WvOrL5GkNvevjLeDIBgpvwcTJvv/C+b+70NYccSfPXD +W2afQRCyBHM20UAaq+KTzX0i6gRAlF245dESgbSIs5Xu7IRdf1V0NIdyR1Wbk8qR+18 lE8vX0DoOfH4Tea6qYayTA9ZzK8TMegSZ5ajUpJECbyIqDu6ed9UAKXoLZFTlowgNLtZ 8nu3iYOwkCM25O6+kudenbyduU0exhceV1+mFBjbZYENlEzwxMF5dtMThn4RKX4yGHZS QzKg== 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 X-Received: by 10.58.182.103 with SMTP id ed7mr8285847vec.70.1372591129232; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 04:18:49 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.52.19.172 with HTTP; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 04:18:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <51D011C1.2040606@gentoo.org> References: <51BF597B.6060600@gentoo.org> <51CF1759.10903@gentoo.org> <51CF4529.7010307@gentoo.org> <51D011C1.2040606@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 07:18:49 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: VdE3kaZypa4ZUJ45_G7lVYSPsT8 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Questions for Candidates (was: Questioning/Interviewing council nominees) From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: a4b6bb91-3df4-4fbb-9dd9-4fc619522ad6 X-Archives-Hash: dfa9d2c823b19a1ceb7e04da1df783c3 On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 7:08 AM, Ch=C3=AD-Thanh Christopher Nguy=E1=BB=85n wrote: > Note however that I consider the scenario that you describe somewhat > unlikely, because I expect that any package fork will be done with the > intention of swaying as many users as possible to the new package. > Therefore, it will probably include most if not all functions of the > original package. Agreed, but even then you start having nomenclature issues. Do we really want new users to have to figure out that apache is the package that nobody uses because a stubborn maintainer is sitting on the name, while apache-fixed is the one that actually works like most would expect it to? > Yes, cooperation is better. But the method how to achieve cooperation is > convincing through arguments, not forcing changes against the wishes of t= he > maintainer. There we disagree. Maintaining a package is a privilege conditioned on using that power in alignment with our philosophies, not a right. I wouldn't force the maintainer to actively support any particular config, but I wouldn't allow them to actively interfere with the properly-supported work of any project. I'll leave it at that - many will agree, many will disagree. I'm going to be completely up-front about my beliefs here, and I'm eager to see how the majority view is reflected in votes in the hope that the community can pick one direction and start moving in it either way. Rich