Rich Freeman: > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 2:15 PM, hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> > wrote: >> A team is clearly violating GLEP39 and you don't care: > > When did I claim to not care? >
That's my interpretation of the council mocking those who have brought up issues by saying: * we cannot hold votes, because no one wants to join To me it sounds like an excuse, because you really were unable to make them actually do a vote. >>> It may have one or many leads, and the leads are selected by >>> the members of the project. This selection must occur at least >>> once every 12 months, and may occur at any time. >> >> Instead we are getting tree inconsistency, because people start >> to ignore the team. >> >> That is the worst that could happen. > > You clearly lack imagination. There are many things that could > happen that are far worse than this. Gentoo not having anybody > maintaining any games would be a worse outcome, for starters. What > "punishment" would you deem appropriate for a team not following > GLEP39? We could disband it, but we're not in any hurry to do so, > because we're not convinced that doing this will make things any > better. > I don't need imagination to see that it can't get worse. There is pretty much only one active member left and some who commit a few things all 3-5 months. But I'm not going to repeat things. If you think everything will break and people will stop working on gentoo if you fix a dysfunctional project, then let me tell you that this already happens... things break right now and people stop working on gentoo (or at least some areas of it) right now. This isn't even a big deal... but because you are incapable of action you are making it one. >> >> Maybe the solution is point 3 of GLEP39 under the rationale >> section: >>> If the council does a lousy job handling global issues (or has >>> no global vision), vote out the bums >> > > Which would be why I've encouraged you to run for Council a few > times now if you think you'll do better. I'm not going to > apologize for being elected. If you really think that games.eclass > is the hill we should all be dying on, you can put that in your > manifesto. I think the urgent part of the crisis was dealt with (a > conflict between individual maintainers and the games team, and a > concern that people couldn't join the games team even if they > wanted to). We can afford to take our time to deal with the rest, > and it is best left to those who actually care about the issue. > Nothing was dealt with. You just told people they should go ahead ignoring a dysfunctional team (but you called it positively "everyone may commit games to the tree" or somesuch). If you think that is a solution, then that's exactly what gentoo will be dying on. And no, this isn't the only incident that shows this way of thinking. The others went similarly bad.
