On 07/08/2014 09:38 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > Dnia 2014-07-08, o godz. 20:52:49 > Michael Palimaka <kensing...@gentoo.org> napisał(a): > >> On 07/08/2014 07:45 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >>> I would like to ask the Council to abolish the following policies that >>> have been established by the games team: >>> >>> 1. that the games team has authority over the actual maintainers >>> on every game ebuild, >>> >>> 2. that every ebuild has to inherit games.eclass as the last eclass >>> inherited [1], even if it actually increases the ebuild size rather >>> than helping, >>> >>> 3. that games must adhere to games team-specific install locations >>> and ownership rules, shortly listed in [2]. >> >> Why is Council intervention needed to abolish these policies? They're >> not binding. >> As far as I know, the games team has no special status so like any other >> project they can recommend whatever they want - nobody is obliged to >> listen (I certainly don't). > > The games team believes that they're binding. In fact, I recall one of > the team members remarking explicitly that they're going to alter > ebuilds that were committed without their approval. > > In fact, they did remove ebuilds from the tree in the past for this > reason [1]. > > [1]:http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/games-strategy/openxcom/?hideattic=0 >
These sorts of actions are contrary to GLEP 39. I would encourage anyone who is a victim of such behaviour to file a complaint with Comrel. Whether we like it or not, the only projects with any kind of real authority are those authorised by the Council. Whatever the games teams happens to believe is irrelevant. They're free to petition the Council to change reality of the situation if they don't like it.
