On 11/6/18 8:49 PM, Gaetan Bisson via arch-dev-public wrote: > [2018-11-06 12:13:54 +0100] Bruno Pagani via arch-dev-public: >> Le 06/11/2018 à 11:37, Allan McRae a écrit : >>> But because you asked my opinion, I think a TU council is >>> a really, really, really bad idea. No need to set some TUs above >>> others. >> Well some already are, because they are devs too. > I do not understand this. When TUs vote, those who also happen to be > devs only have one ballot each, just as any other TU. So how are they > "set above" others? Being a dev does not grant you any extra TU powers, > does it? > >>> We have never had a formal hierarchy in the developers (apart >>> from our glorious leader), >> Here again I would argue that they are devs that have [core] pushing >> rights, as well as devs that are Master Key holders. So even if you >> don’t want to write this black on white, this actually means a small >> group of people have the real control over the distro (technically, >> Master Key holders could revoke everyone else). > I personally see the holding of master keys as a bureaucratic chore > which I'm glad to have other people doing. Likewise, any dev with > nonzero experience on the team can have access to [core] by just asking. > > Contrast this false hierarchies with the fact that anyone can send an > email to arch-dev-public saying "I'm going to do this; any objections?" > and a lack of replies from the community means "Feel free to go ahead." > > So there really is no hierarchy in the sense that no specific people > decide what others can and cannot do. Like Allan said, I think this > system has worked very well for Arch. > >>> and are instead run by those who step up to >>> lead what needs done. I believe that this is what makes Arch work, and >>> governance would be detrimental to the distribution as a whole. >> Because you think Arch work, we (as some TUs/devs) think they are a >> number of issues. > We have certainly not run out of things to improve, but I seriously > doubt that more bureaucracy will do anything to help. > > Cheers.
Can we please (again) move this discussion to aur-general, I see enough bureaucracy already, no need for it to be part of the development list as well... Alad
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
