From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (unknown [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93A441381FA for ; Sat, 10 May 2014 13:22:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9455DE0830; Sat, 10 May 2014 13:22:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-vc0-f177.google.com (mail-vc0-f177.google.com [209.85.220.177]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A3E6E077B for ; Sat, 10 May 2014 13:22:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vc0-f177.google.com with SMTP id if17so2197674vcb.22 for ; Sat, 10 May 2014 06:22:37 -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:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=AEoVmT5jjYkp9tll7ct3B8t8gL+vjlNDmUyiV/zNPZ4=; b=W2UVon5gHGppN8FRdHKrIQRoLYk6fyUE8UR5n8cfLLo5avZAq5HJrtMhgLW8StwoEr aDgzb2KmITguCWwjie8dZQ/sGArGJOwDoLbRJ+NBzHw/VjpaylMVdRyZLC5HJ4522kpo u41D2SwEvE2ZurugNxsYlfsWgktQTaexY6uxUjw+O2rJkiVVJkwmpHZcnTI8Dj0+SRPC OR2Vg+zi28UPg00NLvXXNry4JXCWZ5Qg2xct614xsGivjsAAi3aZsybxrPNGW9ZVmhqN 2dsdvlx3LxtXEOKX/7MG97kJ41O0hyZO9BPsdAG++zaG6NzarQFj6wYk/HKFpkvX5qSj 3Qng== 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 10.52.139.101 with SMTP id qx5mr11182247vdb.17.1399728157165; Sat, 10 May 2014 06:22:37 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.52.53.201 with HTTP; Sat, 10 May 2014 06:22:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <536E1FA7.5050704@gentoo.org> References: <536CE132.1070305@gentoo.org> <20140509172925.29e3f212@gentoo.org> <536D13CF.2000403@gentoo.org> <536D183A.1020405@gentoo.org> <536D1C28.1010504@gentoo.org> <20140509203727.1d6a3e69@gentoo.org> <536D2231.6030808@gentoo.org> <536E1FA7.5050704@gentoo.org> Date: Sat, 10 May 2014 09:22:37 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: K5W6Y8R3Nc8KwpbBKLLwa4e7uj0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014 From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: fb48062d-bb3e-4b0b-9de4-5bd7f97ce9e2 X-Archives-Hash: 10727a8e1b920fad40eaa586e55f06a6 On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:46 AM, hasufell wrote: > This isn't the first time... you probably know, the gtk3 vs gtk2 vs gtk > flag issue is still UNRESOLVED. I pushed for a clear decision often > enough (must be more than a year now) and here we are, still without any. > The same applies for tinderbox, applies for pkg-config discussion, > applies for... You can always put some of these on the council agenda (as has already been done with pkg-config). Granted, I'm not sure what you expect anybody to do about the tinderbox, as the only thing that requires is somebody to step up and just do the work. I agree with your point that a tinderbox would be useful - adding more bug reports to bugzilla is a good thing, and some will get ignored, but others will get fixed which otherwise wouldn't be noticed. However, I don't really see QA as the thing standing in the way of a tinderbox. Honestly, I'm not a big fan of QA taking on the role of the body that makes controversial decisions. I think they're the right place to start with questions like these, but when there is an issue that isn't clear-cut I think that is what the council is for. I'm not saying that QA shouldn't ever be able to make policy - only that it should use discretion when doing so, and that seems to be what is happening here. Rich