From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-project+bounces-3559-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (unknown [208.92.234.80])
by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93A441381FA
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; 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 <gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>; Sat, 10 May 2014 13:22:37 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-vc0-f177.google.com with SMTP id if17so2197674vcb.22
for <gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>; 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: <mailto:gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-project+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-project+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-project+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list <gentoo-project.gentoo.org>
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: <CAGfcS_n-u9T7xec7YGumsnkMXRRnHWQ2i+3SEha+69veSP--WQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAGfcS_nc5DRqy5urW9WjqgD2EKvmc5Ls7Pee2h4Z73xpnx0Q9Q@mail.gmail.com>
<536CE132.1070305@gentoo.org>
<20140509172925.29e3f212@gentoo.org>
<536D13CF.2000403@gentoo.org>
<536D183A.1020405@gentoo.org>
<CAGfcS_nDhAtE8Xw24NPwJeZyZ7rH3iB0VETHVBP+bvU-6T2iyg@mail.gmail.com>
<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: <CAGfcS_=LPHpC_JTN4o9deaKJ2xfOwWLDoT4XZmpNtn8o2F75vw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014
From: Rich Freeman <rich@thefreemanclan.net>
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 <hasufell@gentoo.org> 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