On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 16:46:12 -0400 Luis Francisco Araujo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marius Mauch wrote: > > On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 14:15:18 -0400 > > Luis Francisco Araujo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Marius Mauch wrote: > >>> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:53:32 -0400 > >>> Luis Francisco Araujo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Lance Albertson wrote: > >>>>> I thought of that while I was walking to a meeting..heh > >>>>> Basically, Appoint two people to co-lead, or appoint one Lead > >>>>> and one Vice Lead. That way there's some kind of accountability > >>>>> on the bare minimum level and good coverage (hopefully). > >>>>> > >>>> I was also thinking about turning the Council into a Leaders > >>>> Group , or probably to create a new Core Team. > >>> [snip] > >>> > >>> Before everyone start posting "solutions" please *clearly* define > >>> the perceived problem first, otherwise all attempts to fix it are > >>> futile. > >>> > >> Gentoo current state of stagnation. > >> (re-read some posting of this thread, the first one made by Donnie > >> mainly) > > > > That's about as vague as you can get. > > > > Marius > > > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=gentoo-dev&m=115637880223243&w=2 > > > *sighs* Donnie isn't much clearer either (it's mostly observations mixed with personal feelings, not much in real problem anlysis). Why do you think Gentoo is stagnating? What are the exact problems? List them one by one with one or two sentences, give concrete examples/pointers of what went wrong in the past. Statements like "nothing got done in Gentoo" are useless when you don't say what you think should have been done (without using "something"). In my opinion this really isn't much different than fixing a bug in a program (conceptually): 1) Describe the problem by listing actual and expected results. 2) Locate the (physical) source of the problem. 3) Analyze what's really causing the problem, verify that your analysis is correct. 4) Determine what the best option to fix the problem Right now we're just at the beginning of 1), we have a high level description of the problem, now we need to split it up into testcases (= actual examples of what people think went wrong). Only then can you proceed with the next step. Maybe it's just because I don't really see a problem myself, but I'd really like to understand what people want to get improved, but for that we have to move the discussion to a lower (technical) level. Or do you consider bug reports useful where the problem description is "it doesn't work"? I mean we had a structure when Daniel left, we considered it to be broken and replaced it with something else (after a long debate, selected from multiple proposals), and now everyone says this is also broken and again wants to turn everything upside? If so then lets first please examine why. Marius PS: I'm not tied to any specific structure, just dislike the constant "something sucks, lets change something in the organization to fix it" attitude without ever really knowing what this "something" exactly is. -- Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
