El jue, 07-01-2010 a las 15:59 -0700, Denis Dupeyron escribió:
2010/1/2 Pacho Ramos pa...@condmat1.ciencias.uniovi.es:
[...] I failed to see if, finally, an approval
from the council is needed for merging [multilib] to portage-2.2 or not
The only approval that's required to merge anything
On Saturday 02 January 2010 13:21:05 Pacho Ramos wrote:
El vie, 01-01-2010 a las 13:31 +, Mike Frysinger escribió:
This is your monthly friendly reminder ! Same bat time (typically
the 3rd Thursday at 1800 UTC / 2000 CET / 1400 EST), same bat channel
(#gentoo-council @
2010/1/2 Pacho Ramos pa...@condmat1.ciencias.uniovi.es:
[...] I failed to see if, finally, an approval
from the council is needed for merging [multilib] to portage-2.2 or not
The only approval that's required to merge anything to an official
portage branch is Zac's (zmedico). He may have to
On Fri, Jan 01, 2010 at 01:31:44PM +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
This is your monthly friendly reminder ! Same bat time (typically
the 3rd Thursday at 1800 UTC / 2000 CET / 1400 EST), same bat channel
(#gentoo-council @ irc.freenode.net) !
If you have something you'd wish for us to chat
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 11:54:47 -0800
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 09:25 -0500, Caleb Tennis wrote:
I never even mentioned any specific arch in my original request, nor
did I call any developer out. So please, nobody needs to take this
personally.
Why taking it against arch teams? How is that different from certain
maintainer not taking care of a bug that holds stabilization of certain
package by some time measured in months ? I'll tell you my answer: 'no
difference at all'.
You are right, there's not much difference. However, I
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 09:25:11AM -0500, Caleb Tennis wrote:
Why taking it against arch teams? How is that different from
certain maintainer not taking care of a bug that holds
stabilization of certain package by some time measured in months ?
I'll tell you my answer: 'no difference at
I wanted to take this thread in a slightly different direction so that
the council has a little more to work with tomorrow. Obviously there
are multiple opinions on whether a problem currently exists - and the
council will need to decide on this. If no problem currently exists
they will
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 09:25 -0500, Caleb Tennis wrote:
I never even mentioned any specific arch in my original request, nor
did I call any developer out. So please, nobody needs to take this
personally.
Correct, you did not. What I find absolutely *damning* is the fact that
as soon as any
В Срд, 09/01/2008 в 13:13 +0100, Fernando J. Pereda пишет:
Why taking it against arch teams? How is that different from certain
maintainer not taking care of a bug that holds stabilization of certain
package by some time measured in months ? I'll tell you my answer: 'no
difference at all'.
Correct, you did not. What I find absolutely *damning* is the fact that
as soon as any arches *were* mentioned, everybody was talking about the
same one. It's rather funny that everybody seems to have the exact same
impression of what architecture might be a slacker and would be affected
by
If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
Gentoo dev list to see.
I would like to request the council discuss, though not necessarily take action
or
vote on, the idea of slacker arches and what ebuild
Caleb Tennis wrote:
If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
Gentoo dev list to see.
I would like to request the council discuss, though not necessarily take
action or
vote on, the idea of slacker
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 00:54:50 +0100
Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd suggest something like if nobody could test your update in a
timely way you should ask and possibly get an account on an arch box
in order to test it and bump if the minimal test pass
sounds fair?
Sounds like a
On Thursday 05 January 2006 17:20, Patrick Lauer wrote:
But it's already getting too bureaucratic ;-)
It's getting more and more difficult to get things done, more and more
people / groups / herds to wait on to decide obvious things.
They shouldn't. If there is anything I learned is that a
On Thursday 05 January 2006 18:03, Patrick Lauer wrote:
Exactly :-) But I guess many among us have become a bit disillusioned
and try to stay away from what is perceived as useless trolling and
silly infights. So things either stall in discussion or get implemented
with the obvious flawed
On Thursday 05 January 2006 13:42, Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 07:56:30AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
You guys are more than welcome to go apply at Red Hat or Novell.
Some of us already work for companies that produce other Linux
distributions or support the companies that do.
On Sunday 08 January 2006 01:38, Brian Harring wrote:
Asking people to focus on cleaning the tree? Sure. Generate a list
of candidates would help. Blocking new packages? No...
I can't say I did not expect negative replies and generating a list of
candidates is at least a suggestion. But a
On Sunday 08 January 2006 01:35, Stuart Herbert wrote:
I agree that some cleaning is needed (and some of my packages are
desperate for it!), but I'm totally opposed to this idea. I think the
idea of shutting up shop for three months (presumably with a closed
for refurbishment sign on the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Carsten Lohrke wrote:
On Sunday 08 January 2006 01:35, Stuart Herbert wrote:
As Donnie already pointed out, I did not mean version bumps, but only new
packages. How about this idea: Everyone who adds a new package, has to check
and fix an
On Sunday 08 January 2006 15:01, Brian Harring wrote:
Guessing you missed the previous flame war about how trying to force
people to do something doesn't actually work?
When it's not common sense, that every dev is supposed to do a minimal on
general QA, Gentoo has a problem.
You're assuming
On Sunday 01 January 2006 06:30, Mike Frysinger wrote:
Keep in mind that every resubmission to the council for review must
first be sent to the gentoo-dev mailing list 7 days (minimum) before
being submitted as an agenda item which itself occurs 7 days before the
meeting. Simply put, the
On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 06:31:42 +
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 04:31:30 + Kurt Lieber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| We haven't done anything interesting or innovative over
| the last...year?
Codswallop. We've done lots of large, innovative changes. You've
On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 12:09:09 + Tom Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| If you'd like to see more interesting or innovative changes, start
| by looking into how we can make it easier for developers to
| advertise what they've been doing.
|
| planet.g.o?
No, that's censored to only display
On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 19:57 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 03:58:57AM +, Kurt Lieber wrote:
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 01:17:06PM -0500 or thereabouts, Chris Gianelloni
wrote:
Gentoo is not a distribution of Linux. Gentoo is not anything more than
a loosely bound group
Here are my random two cents
On 1/5/06, Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 19:57 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 03:58:57AM +, Kurt Lieber wrote:
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 01:17:06PM -0500 or thereabouts, Chris Gianelloni
wrote:
Gentoo is
On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 23:33 -0500, Andrew Muraco wrote:
I like your idea of having gentoo not being a distro, but moreso a
collection of tools. Mostly because gentoo's method of dealing with
problems (problems that binary distros tend to have, like keeping
software uptodate) are handled in
On Thu, 2006-01-05 at 06:00 +, Kurt Lieber wrote:
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 12:39:05AM -0500 or thereabouts, Alec Warner wrote:
I think some people have attempted things that are interesting or
innovative, although they may not have gotten off of the ground quite
yet.
That's the
On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 07:49:21 -0500 Dan Meltzer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Apparently it does. How many huge threads have you seen lately that
| accomplished nothing? How many threads have people started with great
| ideas, only to give up in disgust because people cause a huge fuss
| about small
Corey Shields wrote:
GLI a third direction (while kicking anyone who wishes to
run with them in the nuts).
What is your problem with the installer project? Over the past year or so, there
have been *2* people that complained about us treating them badly. The first
person was the genux guy.
On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 07:18:40 -0600 Andrew Gaffney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| What is your problem with the installer project? Over the past year
| or so, there have been *2* people that complained about us treating
| them badly.
Hrm, have the arch teams really left you in peace for an entire year
Kurt Lieber wrote:
I agree, but it's been in development for...I dunno..almost two years now
I think and it's still not released. I'm not slamming the -installer team
-- I think they're a great bunch of guys, but it does point to our
inability to execute.
If you're not going to do some basic
On Thu, 2006-01-05 at 07:49 -0500, Dan Meltzer wrote:
Personally, I *love* the fact that the Hardened team has differing goals
from Release Engineering. I also don't see how our goals could ever
really be guided by a single vision. That doesn't keep us from working
together to each
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 07:51:39AM -0500 or thereabouts, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
This is what I don't get. So what if Gentoo is an amoeba? Does it
really matter? Would you rather that we dropped Gentoo/ALT, Hardened,
Embedded, and anything else interesting just so we can focus on a core
On Thu, 2006-01-05 at 14:22 +, Kurt Lieber wrote:
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 07:51:39AM -0500 or thereabouts, Chris Gianelloni
wrote:
This is what I don't get. So what if Gentoo is an amoeba? Does it
really matter? Would you rather that we dropped Gentoo/ALT, Hardened,
Embedded, and
On Thursday 05 January 2006 13:24, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
No, that's censored to only display what certain people want it to say
rather than the truth of what's going on.
planet.gentoo.org/universe ?
I have yet to see anything, from rants to personal notes, that didn't got
there (for what I've
On Thursday 05 January 2006 15:59, Stuart Herbert wrote:
Page title: Gentoo Linux - Gentoo Linux News
Yeah ok, let me end up these holidays, and I'll prepare a written request to
change the Linux part in something else (Land if you want to keep the L, or
I'll try to find a name we can use)...
On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 17:20:09 +0100 Patrick Lauer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| It's getting more and more difficult to get things done, more and
| more people / groups / herds to wait on to decide obvious things.
Hrm, it is? Seems to me that it's no worse that it used to be. It's
just that the
On 01 Jan 2006 05:30:01 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
| vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
| Gentoo dev list to see.
Could you discuss adopting one of the clauses I proposed in the RFC:
On Thu, 2006-01-05 at 15:51 +, Kurt Lieber wrote:
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 08:07:14AM -0500 or thereabouts, Chris Gianelloni
wrote:
Sounds like you'd rather take Gentoo back a few years to the days before
Hardened/Embedded/Alt. I guess we really should just be Gentoo Linux
and ignore
On Thu, 2006-01-05 at 09:42 -0600, Lance Albertson wrote:
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
Really, I don't have any vision for Gentoo and I like it that way.
Amazing words to come from Gentoo's release manager. We might as well
call our releases 'maintenance updates' then if thats the case.
Why
Hi Lance,
You started this thread by proposing that: (1) Gentoo is lacking
a direction/goal, (2) this is supported by the lack of ground breaking
enhancements in the past couple of years. Later in the thread you
proposed that (3) the solution may be to appoint a single person to
provide a global
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 11:37:32AM -0500 or thereabouts, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
That says to me exactly what I stated that you said.
Then it's apparent we're not communicating well. I'll leave it at that,
thank you for sharing your opinions and put this thread to bed.
--kurt
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 07:56:30AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
You guys are more than welcome to go apply at Red Hat or Novell.
Some of us already work for companies that produce other Linux
distributions or support the companies that do. :)
thanks,
greg k-h
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
On Thursday 05 January 2006 16:46, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
Yeah ok, let me end up these holidays, and I'll prepare a written request
to change the Linux part in something else
You should also contact the folks working on the gentoo.org redesign. While
there was a bit of fuss about the
Hi Kurt,
Kurt Lieber wrote: [Wed Jan 04 2006, 11:31:30PM EST]
Ok, then what should Gentoo do to fix this percieved decline?
Exactly what a lot of folks will have kittens about; appoint a CEO,
leader, boss, manager, etc. (you know, all those corporate-type
words that raise the hackles
On Thu, 2006-01-05 at 17:04 -0500, Curtis Napier wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 12:09:09 + Tom Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| If you'd like to see more interesting or innovative changes, start
| by looking into how we can make it easier for developers to
|
On Thursday 05 January 2006 23:04, Curtis Napier wrote:
No, that's censored to only display what certain people want it to say
rather than the truth of what's going on.
Censored? Please expand on this, how is it censored? I thought we were
allowed to put anything Gentoo related we want to
Carsten Lohrke wrote:
On Thursday 05 January 2006 16:46, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
Yeah ok, let me end up these holidays, and I'll prepare a written request
to change the Linux part in something else
You should also contact the folks working on the gentoo.org redesign. While
there
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 04:31:30AM +, Kurt Lieber wrote:
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 07:57:06PM -0800 or thereabouts, Greg KH wrote:
Which is why Gentoo has jumped the shark and is now on a long, slow
decline.
Ok, then what should Gentoo do to fix this percieved decline?
Exactly
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 04:31:30AM +, Kurt Lieber wrote:
appoint a CEO, leader, boss, manager, etc. all those corporate-type words
that raise the hackles of nearly everyone on this list.
We have no effective leadership whatsoever. We spend far too much time
arguing among ourselves instead
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 11:23:07PM -0500 or thereabouts, Philip Webb wrote:
The final line suggests the writer has no serious interest in Gentoo.
Do your research. You know not of what you speak.
Appoint one person to lead: the Germans did that back in 1933
Excellent. I declare Godwin's
On Tuesday 03 January 2006 11:05, Grant Goodyear wrote:
Henrik Brix Andersen wrote: [Sun Jan 01 2006, 05:35:26PM CST]
On Sun, Jan 01, 2006 at 05:30:01AM +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 01:17:06PM -0500 or thereabouts, Chris Gianelloni
wrote:
Gentoo is not a distribution of Linux. Gentoo is not anything more than
a loosely bound group of developers all doing their own thing in a
collaborative and collective manner. You cannot use corporate thinking
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 03:58:57AM +, Kurt Lieber wrote:
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 01:17:06PM -0500 or thereabouts, Chris Gianelloni
wrote:
Gentoo is not a distribution of Linux. Gentoo is not anything more than
a loosely bound group of developers all doing their own thing in a
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 07:57:06PM -0800 or thereabouts, Greg KH wrote:
Which is why Gentoo has jumped the shark and is now on a long, slow
decline.
Ok, then what should Gentoo do to fix this percieved decline?
Exactly what a lot of folks will have kittens about; appoint a CEO, leader,
Lares Moreau wrote:
On Tue, 2006-01-03 at 18:19 +0100, Simon Stelling wrote:
My point is, either you have to generalize each project's goal to a real
triviality or you have to define a goal which doesn't match some
project's goals. Conclusion: Let it be.
Maybe we are looking at this
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kurt Lieber wrote:
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 07:57:06PM -0800 or thereabouts, Greg KH wrote:
Which is why Gentoo has jumped the shark and is now on a long, slow
decline.
Ok, then what should Gentoo do to fix this percieved decline?
Exactly what
[snip]
Thanks for your comments.. As for management, anyone who reads Five
Dysfunctions of a Team by Patrick Lencioni[1] will see all of the problems
that Gentoo has, as well as the potential Gentoo has if it worked well.
[/snip]
OK granted it is a shameless plug, but this book is so on
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kurt Lieber wrote:
| On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 12:39:05AM -0500 or thereabouts, Alec Warner
wrote:
|The Gentoo Installer is an interesting project, not only for the
|graphical frontend, but for the Distro-sponsored Network installer that
|is being
On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 04:31:30 + Kurt Lieber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| We haven't done anything interesting or innovative over
| the last...year?
Codswallop. We've done lots of large, innovative changes. You've just
not been paying enough attention to have seen them, and the people
doing the
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 10:05:52PM -0800, Corey Shields wrote:
Where is the centralized vision that everyone is working together here that
people not directly related to each project will buy in to and therefore do
what they can to see it succeed?
We've had centralized visions for a long
Lance Albertson wrote:
Gentoo has been missing some kind of direction/goal for some time now.
Looking back at the last two years, what are the major
changes/accomplishments that we have done? Granted, I know there has
been great strides in improvement in some things, but I really wonder
Henrik Brix Andersen wrote: [Sun Jan 01 2006, 05:35:26PM CST]
On Sun, Jan 01, 2006 at 05:30:01AM +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
Gentoo dev list to see.
I
Hi,
Lares Moreau wrote:
need to have some form of Governance board. A board that doesn't worry
about implementation details; a board that gives a long term vision to
our project.
This sounds very scary to me. Perhaps that's because I'm not sure how
detailed such a plan would be. If our goal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Simon Stelling wrote:
| My point is, either you have to generalize each project's goal to a real
| triviality or you have to define a goal which doesn't match some
| project's goals. Conclusion: Let it be.
Not necessarily. I just wrote on my blog
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 09:28:24 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Here's one example of a global goal: Reduce the learning curve of
| Gentoo and increase its usability.
That goal is silly and oxymoronic. Reduced learning curve decreases
usability.
--
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 09:28:24 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| | Here's one example of a global goal: Reduce the learning curve of
| | Gentoo and increase its usability.
|
| That goal is silly and oxymoronic.
On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 12:14:05PM -0600, Lance Albertson wrote:
Since the council is the closest representation to a leader we have, I'd
like to ask if they can come up with some kind of global goals for 2006
and beyond.
I couldn't agree more, yet I'm afraid Gentoo has grown too large to do
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 06:21:39PM +0100, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
There are some interesting ideas on the Gentoo Forums that aren't situated
in any of the current projects, such as Top-100 Feature Requests [1],
Gentoo
Binary profile [2], Gentoo Knowledge Base [3], USE-flag triggered
software
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
| As a prime example, I strongly believe that making Gentoo as easy as
| possible can only come about by reducing its usability. If there is a
| large number of choices, no matter how well documented, it isn't easy
| for a
Grant Goodyear wrote:
Lance Albertson wrote: [Mon Jan 02 2006, 12:14:05PM CST]
Gentoo has been missing some kind of direction/goal for some time now.
Looking back at the last two years, what are the major
changes/accomplishments that we have done? Granted, I know there has
been great strides in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Simon Stelling wrote:
| Donnie Berkholz wrote:
| - - Releng would work to ensure that installing Gentoo is as easy as
| possible.
|
|
| This is very vague too. Easy for who? Easy for a user who is too lazy to
| read docs and doesn't have any
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lance Albertson wrote:
| All of those of course are true. I guess I'm thinking more in the large
| picture of things. Retiring non-active devs isn't something I'd exactly
| call 'ground breaking' :-). I know there are things being worked on now
|
On Tue, 2006-01-03 at 12:35 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
More structure and less red tape ... How do those two work together? I
feel like they're connected -- a more structured organization will have
more bureaucracy and more red tape.
To me red tape means that there are odd and peculiar
Lance Albertson wrote: [Tue Jan 03 2006, 02:09:43PM CST]
Sure, we've made lots of great improvements, but I'm concerned that we
have too many subprojects all working in their little world and no one
really looking over the whole project making sure things flow together
well. There's no one out
Chris Gianelloni wrote: [Tue Jan 03 2006, 12:17:06PM CST]
I think part of the problem is that many people are forgetting exactly
what Gentoo really is. Gentoo is not a distribution of Linux. Gentoo
is not anything more than a loosely bound group of developers all doing
their own thing in a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I've actually been tinkering with this idea for a whole mostly due to
the gross amount of crazy crap that is posted to gentoo-wiki.com ( no
offense to the site which otherwise does a great job ). However I was
under the impression that the docs team
Mike Frysinger wrote:
If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
Gentoo dev list to see.
Gentoo has been missing some kind of direction/goal for some time now.
Looking back at the last two years, what are
On Mon, 2006-01-02 at 12:14 -0600, Lance Albertson wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
Gentoo has been missing some kind of direction/goal for some time now.
Looking back at the last two years, what are the major
changes/accomplishments that we have done? Granted, I know there has
been great strides
Lares Moreau wrote:
On Mon, 2006-01-02 at 12:14 -0600, Lance Albertson wrote:
I have been involved with many Volunteer organisations over the last
couple years. Not all computer related. Something Gentoo is notably
missing is a Mission Statement. IMO a Mission statement acts as a beacon
on
On Mon, 2006-01-02 at 12:50 -0600, Lance Albertson wrote:
A mission statement only goes so far. The underlying leadership has to
make sure that statement is upheld and kept alive. Too many folks have a
mission statement, but no one ever remembers what it is or abides by it.
I guess there isn't
On Mon, 2006-01-02 at 20:03 +0100, Patrick Lauer wrote:
On Mon, 2006-01-02 at 12:50 -0600, Lance Albertson wrote:
A mission statement only goes so far. The underlying leadership has to
make sure that statement is upheld and kept alive. Too many folks have a
mission statement, but no one
Lares Moreau wrote:
Upon doing some reading about what _exactly_ Gentoo council does, it
seems to me that Gentoo Council is an operations board. I think what
Patrick and Lance are getting at (correct me if I'm wrong) is that we
need to have some form of Governance board. A board that doesn't
On 02-01-2006 20:03:54 +0100, Patrick Lauer wrote:
On Mon, 2006-01-02 at 12:50 -0600, Lance Albertson wrote:
I guess I'm almost hinting at that Gentoo needs a single entity that's
sole purpose is to drive/research the direction and goals for Gentoo.
Or call it proper hierarchy. Management.
On Mon, 2006-01-02 at 20:49 +0100, Grobian wrote:
On 02-01-2006 20:03:54 +0100, Patrick Lauer wrote:
On Mon, 2006-01-02 at 12:50 -0600, Lance Albertson wrote:
I guess I'm almost hinting at that Gentoo needs a single entity that's
sole purpose is to drive/research the direction and goals
Patrick Lauer wrote:
On Mon, 2006-01-02 at 12:50 -0600, Lance Albertson wrote:
A mission statement only goes so far. The underlying leadership has to
make sure that statement is upheld and kept alive. Too many folks have a
mission statement, but no one ever remembers what it is or abides by it.
On 02-01-2006 21:12:03 +0100, Patrick Lauer wrote:
If it isn't one person, then you would need to find two persons or even
more that are completely aligned and have the same visions. Since
leaders usually are charismatic and controversial where necessary to
achieve their goals, it is hard
Grobian wrote:
On 02-01-2006 21:12:03 +0100, Patrick Lauer wrote:
We already have a mission statement - to produce the best software
distribution, ever ;-)
Wether it should be Linux only, GNU-based or a metadistribution is a
rather touchy subject, so please try to keep the discussion
civilized
Chandler Carruth wrote:
Lance Albertson wrote:
Yeah, maybe so :-)
Reflecting on this more, I see that most of the council members are a
very important part of the active Gentoo development model (toolchain,
etc). They need to keep those roles active as much as possible, then
help on the
On Mon, 2006-01-02 at 15:03 -0600, Lance Albertson wrote:
Lance mentioned something about what he sees is a niche where Gentoo
does quite well. Produce the best software distribution, ever sounds
a bit vague to me. That's why I agree with Lance for now. Maybe after
a little research,
On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 10:52:43PM +0100, Patrick Lauer wrote:
I wonder ... can we have one precise mission statement without
alienating a big part of our user base?
To copy another opensource group's mission statement,
Total World Domination
Hey, it's been working for them so far,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lance Albertson wrote:
| Mike Frysinger wrote:
|
|
|If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
|vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
|Gentoo dev list to see.
|
|
| Gentoo has been missing some kind
On Sun, Jan 01, 2006 at 05:30:01AM +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
Gentoo dev list to see.
I would like GLEP 45 [1] - GLEP date format - to be discussed and
voted
Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
On Sun, Jan 01, 2006 at 05:30:01AM +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
Gentoo dev list to see.
I would like GLEP 45 [1] - GLEP date
95 matches
Mail list logo
