Re: [gentoo-dev] Seeking questions for a user survey
On Jan 15, 2008 4:05 AM, Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was really speaking mostly of the people who dislike the *idea* of an Installer for Gentoo, and then go and bash it as much as they can without providing any real evidence or reasons, except for the old faithful it's against the spirit of Gentoo reason, which is a complete fallacy. Again, Gentoo is about empowering the users to make their own decisions. No, I won't say Gentoo is about choice, because that is *STUPID* in that it gives people an excuse to argue about even the biggest piece of junk being added to our tree or supported, as if we have to, to give them the choice. Instead, I prefer the concept of empowering the user to make their own choices, where they can choose to add anything that they want in their personal overlay, as we have given them the tools to do so. Now, if a user wants to use an Installer and someone wants to write the code, who are you (or I) to say that they are in the wrong? After all, isn't it that idea of empowering the user *really* the spirit of Gentoo? I think so. I am very pleased to hear from someone who knows the basis of any opened community rules :) To deal with the top-priority issues and drive Gentoo to the right direction, there is the council in charge of helping devs to go where it needs. But restraining users -or devs- projects is not the right way. Gal' -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Distrowatch
Hi all, I am a new gentoo user (less than a year) and very pleased with this distro. I just have one point to suggest: I am aware of the recent changes in Gentoo world, the CoC set-up, council and the troubles arround it. But I think you missed something very important - and it is for me as I am looking to get involved into an open project -, this is who is gentoo and who decides, from an external situation ? I don't think these information are as clearer as they should. There is a council to lead Gentoo to achieve global objectives what that means exactly as a dev view ? These are questions I am facing. Regards Gal' 2007/3/20, Christopher Sawtell [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Tue, 20 Mar 2007, Ioannis Aslanidis wrote: What I personally think out of all this situation is nice propaganda for Gentoo, which we could somehow exploit in 'our benefit'. Anyone with ideas on how to promote our distribution even with that kind of propaganda? If nothing else, it does prove that the development community is vibrant, active, and as a whole does not tolerate the bickering which has been the downfall of many other development groups. On 3/20/07, Philip Webb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 070319 Michael Krelin wrote: someone wrote : Seriously. Everybody go to distrowatch and click on the little Gentoo on the right I mistook seriously as relating to the rest of your letter Your name suggests you're not a native speaker. It's a common trick of stand-up comedians to introduce their next joke with But seriously, folks ... (smile). -- Ioannis Aslanidis deathwing00[at]gentoo.org 0xB9B11F4E -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] April Council meeting summary
Very good job. 2007/4/13, Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]: here is a summary of this month's meeting. people seem to think that the CoC is set in stone now when in reality it is not ... feel free to hilite anything you feel wasnt addressed in the previous discussion or anything new you've thought of (i went through the previous threads and tried to distill out things that were missed, but i cant catch it all). CoC: - amne has been doing a good job putting the group together - ask proctors to address these two issues for next meeting: - add a mission statement - fix wording to have a positive spin sync Social Contract with Gentoo Foundation (external entities): - trustees will review the statement to clarify things and then we'll look again at syncing documentation for mail servers: - they are supposed to be finished in terms of content - wolf will look at getting them actually committed PMS: - current status looks good in getting issues resolved - should be up and running on Gentoo infra by next meeting - let the devs sort out the todo as the current work flow seems to be getting things done finally splitting gentoo-dev mailing lists: - no real favorable backing for this - people dont like -dev because of the crap, splitting the lists will just move the crap else where, not really solving anything - let proctors do their thing and if need be, review this again limiting of council powers: - doesnt seem to be real backing for this from dev community or the council itself - if a majority of developers are truly upset/disturbed by a council decision, it should show easily - if you dont like a council member, dont vote for them next time moving gentoo-core to public archives: - many people dislike this moving forward - use -dev over -core for most things - not going to happen at this time - look into getting a dev-only archive finally surveys: - robbat2 will look at getting user/dev surveys in place after the release of 2007.0 - probably try and take fresh surveys after each bi-annual release from now on to see if we're meeting many of users' desires new metastructure proposal: - doesnt seem to address any of the problems it proposes to - a large majority of developers and users prefer the single tree development style that Gentoo has versus many smaller trees full log at the normal place: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20070412.txt -mike -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proctors - improve the concept or discard it?
Hi all, I am not a dev but a Gentoo-addicted user that would be interested in getting involved. So I have no more situation awareness than the website and this ML brought to me. But I have 2 cents I want to share peacefully. First, I am wondering about the exact role of what is known to be: The elected Gentoo Council decides on global issues and policies that affect multiple projects in Gentoo. It also serves as an appeal court for disciplinary decisions. Many questions come up. How much powerful it is ? Why the council get both a decisional role and a proctor one ? Why do the community of dev needs such a council ? Well, even if I don't have the answers, what I know is there is a need to explain, describe, and provide clear information about this to the whole world. Neither http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/index.xml nor http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0039.html provides enough information. Why it is a need ? Because lots of people want to know where they are. To keep on lack of communication, I would like to share one or two suggestions. The glep page http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0039.html lists some issues about the TLPs... and I come to that point: I don't know how the dev teams manage their projects, deal with planning, call for new blood and so on... since I just can have an external view, but it is possible to know why there is no public information about Gentoo and its packages/projects/needs/delays/status-of-whatever-that-needs-a-status ? Right, there is an Online Package Database good. But definitely insufficient. Can't we have a kind of https://savannah.gnu.org/ for Gentoo ? A web application providing information like status of packages, needs of dev, planned delivery dates, delays, links to bugs, plus info on projects, stand-alone tasks, with related decisions of the council and so on. What for ? just to have a better view of Gentoo as a whole. The users could better know what is going on, how previous issues turned out and many more info. The dev too, plus maybe extra info that are not public. Because when I see email on this ML like package johndoe requires new dev, I think wtf this request is not shared on a public location. When I also read the meeting logs of the council, I am wondering about the fact that you need to be member of the council to have a clear global view of the situation. But I can't see why normal user and dev could not have it. So, what's about the council ? A band of proctors, moderating the ML ? Or a powerful and decisional group that leads Gentoo to the directions these 7 devs choose, due to the global overview that only them have ? Why not providing technical solutions to allow the whole dev community to make choices, open new projects, closing others, and providing these info to the users ? What could be the council in such a situation ? I think we need such a council to handle TLPs for example. The council could vote a list of TLPs, and take special care of them, putting high priority (e.g. to make sure that the 2007.0 release project doest not lack devs ), providing official news, and so on. Maybe a so big community of devs needs a secretary, some entity that embodies the executive power, like in most of the democratic regimes. But all the devs could be free to start project, join a dev team or an existing project the way they want... as long as they respect the CoC. For the TLPs, a minimum activity can be required, and the dev responsible for the package/project can take decision to bring solutions together, but not the proctors in their own since the project manager know the devs working in his team and all the related issues. It sounds sensible, isn't it? But I do not understand why 7 devs -even elected by the others- could make decisions on other projects and are described as the group in charge of the 'global issues and policies'. Gal' 2007/6/6, Wulf C. Krueger [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Wednesday, June 6, 2007 05:29:47 PM Grant Goodyear wrote: [Proctor system] a way to fix the current system, or should it be chucked entirely, as has been suggested? Personally, I think we simply don't need the proctors. I'm sure they have the best intentions but I've never seen any clear guidelines for them. They use their best judgement what to handle and what not to but due to language barriers, cultural differences etc. it's difficult to judge. Furthermore, where do we need them? The Forums are moderated by an, IMHO, excellent team. IRC is more or less self-moderated. That basically leaves the mailinglists and among those, the only one that *might* arguably need supervision could be -dev. Do we really need moderation on the list? Or could we just literally moderate ourselves instead? Could we try and succeed to be just ignore some flames instead of adding oil to the fire? And even if we can't: We still have DevRel we can complain to. Yes, DevRel is for inter-developer conflicts but let's look back in the archives a bit - do we
