On 02:33 Fri 05 Feb , Markus Dittrich wrote: > > We also need to know whether we still want a leader. Some time ago > > the question was raised, but got no definite answer. > > I think if we decide that we want a leader we should clearly > define what we expect her/him to do. We're a very diverse > bunch and the packages in science.g.o span a wide range of > fields so I am not 100% convinced that a lead will necessarily > be very effective. On the other hand, there are a few things > that definitely need improvement, documentation and eclasses > being some candidates here, and it might be nice to have somebody > who feels responsible and coordinates/delegates a bit. I'd > probably need a nudge once in a while ;)
One thing I think would be great is someone who would go out into "science-land" and publicize how great Gentoo is for science. Perhaps individual ambassadors for each branch of science, who would be willing to proselytize at conferences, on discipline mailing lists, etc. Other than that, it seems like things roll along fairly well. The main science-wide work seems related to either MPI or Fortran, both of which could use some integration with more typical things. Have you noticed how Fortran-related things are almost totally different from C++, in terms of eclass usage, function naming, etc? No good reason for that. -- Thanks, Donnie Donnie Berkholz Science team developer Gentoo Linux Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com
