On 2006.08.24 01:17, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
I just posted this to my blog [1], but I know you don't all read it so
I
wanted to post it here as well. Do read all the way through. I very
rarely write anything this long, and when I do, it's something I feel
very strongly about.
I started my fourth
On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 02:35:53PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
Btw, the new policy also includes the possibility of refering a
decision to the council in certain cases, see Resolution and Appeal.
I've read the policy.
Did i say you didn't?
I'm sure nearly every member
of devrel
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 05:53:02 +0200 Wernfried Haas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Ok, so i guess it boils down to:
| You and Chris believe devrel won't do anything based on your personal
| judgement.
| I believe devrel will do something based on my personal judgement.
Not so much personal judgement as
On Thursday 24 August 2006 02:17, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
If I could go back in time a couple of years and prevent this democracy
from ever happening, I would. If I could fix these problems myself, I
would. But it requires buy-in from the entire Gentoo community if we're
to do anything about
On Thursday 24 August 2006 10:26, Wernfried Haas wrote:
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 12:54:23AM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
The council doesn't actually do anything AFAICT, it just approves GLEP
decisions that have already been made. So in effect we have no
leadership.
Suspending sunrise was
On Friday 25 August 2006 21:41, Stuart Herbert wrote:
Personally, I'm opposed to a return that that hierarchy. The idea
that somehow desktop, server, and other such projects should sit at an
exclusive top-table doesn't work for me.
While I am partly responsible for setting it up I have to
On Thursday 24 August 2006 16:58, Lance Albertson wrote:
True, that might work, but then you run the risk of losing cohesion of
what everyone knows. To me, the same person(s) should be at all those
meetings if possible. Its better to have one or two people who know
whats going on with all
Daniel Ostrow wrote:
On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 17:26 -0400, Michael Cummings wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stuart Herbert wrote:
We've had a global vision for where Gentoo is going from before I
joined - Gentoo is here to create a source-based distribution where
On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 22:36 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 14:00 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Oh, gimme a break. Screaming about it on -dev for hundreds of posts
isn't just equivalent to a vote, it's better. It makes people think
there's
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
[snip]
How do you kick someone out of a project? Currently, I know of no way
to do so.
It's at the leads discretion. For amd64 me and my OP leads talk it over
and make a decision. I suspect that most leads simply don't have the
balls to remove someone. It's not an
Mike Doty wrote:
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
[snip]
How do you kick someone out of a project? Currently, I know of no way
to do so.
It's at the leads discretion. For amd64 me and my OP leads talk it over
and make a decision. I suspect that most leads simply don't have the
balls to remove
On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 11:45:36AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
As Weeve said, he's still trying to get people to stop breaking SPARC
keywords, just like 3 years ago. It's just when trying to do anything
larger than a single project that you run into issues.
People that do this sort of
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 18:25:53 +0200 Wernfried Haas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| So if by breaking the keyword someone breaks a policy, it is something
| devrel should and will deal with.
Should, sure. Care to back up the will part?
--
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail: ciaran dot mccreesh at
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 06:29:03PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
Quite frankly, I think that with a properly run community, there should
be no need for a Developer Relations project, since it should be
mostly self-policing.
With 300+ people, i severely doubt self policing would work. I assume
On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 05:35:53PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 18:25:53 +0200 Wernfried Haas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| So if by breaking the keyword someone breaks a policy, it is something
| devrel should and will deal with.
Should, sure. Care to back up the will
Wernfried Haas wrote:
On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 05:35:53PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 18:25:53 +0200 Wernfried Haas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| So if by breaking the keyword someone breaks a policy, it is something
| devrel should and will deal with.
Should, sure. Care
On Fri, 2006-08-25 at 19:13 +0200, Wernfried Haas wrote:
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 06:29:03PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
Quite frankly, I think that with a properly run community, there should
be no need for a Developer Relations project, since it should be
mostly self-policing.
With
On Fri, 2006-08-25 at 19:27 +0200, Wernfried Haas wrote:
What i can assure you is that there is a policy that says so, and that
policies are there to be followed.
I thought that you'd been around long enough to laugh at this one,
yourself. Sure the policies are there to be followed. That
On 8/24/06, Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A distribution is more than just an entity that packages upstream
tarballs. I agree with your point, but it misses a large chunk of what
we do.
We do more than that, sure, but the vast majority of the day to day
work in Gentoo is exactly
On 8/24/06, Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A distribution is more than just an entity that packages upstream
tarballs. I agree with your point, but it misses a large chunk of what
we do.
We do more than that, sure, but the vast majority of the day to day
work in Gentoo is exactly
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 20:41:16 +0100 Stuart Herbert
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Seriously - what exactly is this enormous brick wall that folks need
| a boost from management to climb over?
1. Portage.
2. Tree QA.
3. www.g.o.
Those three should get you started.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail
Chris Gianelloni wrote: [Fri Aug 25 2006, 01:35:53PM CDT]
See, you missed that we're talking with the idea of people belonging to
a project. If you work on my project and quit, I'll know. If you go
AWOL, I'll know. I can then simply ask Infra to remove your access. It
really should be that
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
From what I see, projects are pretty free to govern themselves. How do
you see it differently?
As Weeve said, he's still trying to get people to stop breaking SPARC
keywords, just like 3 years ago. It's just when trying to do anything
larger than a single project
PORTAGE:
Portage developers are afraid to put anything new in the tree for fear
of breaking things (and somewhat rightly so). But as noted, it also
means you get new stuff very infrequently.
I think the portage team has either done a poor job of bringing their
issues to the table; or the
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 22:36 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
From what I see, projects are pretty free to govern themselves. How do
you see it differently?
How do you kick someone out of a project? Currently, I know of no way
to do so.
What process is required for
On Thursday 24 August 2006 02:17, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
snip
When I think about where Gentoo was when we turned into a democracy
years ago, and where Gentoo is now, I don't see much of a difference on
the large scale. We lack any global vision for where Gentoo is going, we
can't agree on who
Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen wrote:
On Thursday 24 August 2006 02:17, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
All in all, the vocal minority has done a splendid job of becoming more
influential, crippling Gentoo's ability to do anything at all about its
members, their flames, their outstanding work at ruining
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 09:50:04 +0100
Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We've had a global vision for where Gentoo is going from before I
joined - Gentoo is here to create a source-based distribution where
each package is as close to what $UPSTREAM intended it to be as
possible. We're not
On Thursday 24 August 2006 09:54, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
The council doesn't actually do anything AFAICT, it just approves GLEP
decisions that have already been made. So in effect we have no leadership.
Well, to quote the council project page:
The elected Gentoo Council decides on global
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
I just posted this to my blog [1], but I know you don't all read it so I
wanted to post it here as well. Do read all the way through. I very
rarely write anything this long, and when I do, it's something I feel
very strongly about.
snip a bunch of good stuff
If I
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 09:11:52 -0500 Lance Albertson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| I partially agree that a strong council will help the situation, but
| the problem with any leadership-by-committee model is the lack of
| quick decisions. Many times things come up that need a quick
| resolution (when I
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 09:11:52 -0500 Lance Albertson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| I partially agree that a strong council will help the situation, but
| the problem with any leadership-by-committee model is the lack of
| quick decisions. Many times things come up that need
On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 09:50 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
Hi Donnie,
Lots of interesting material in this thread, and I haven't come close to
processing it all. I am briefly responding to two of Stuart's points
just to try to cut off further attempts to recall history. For those of
you who
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 09:11:52 -0500 Lance Albertson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| I partially agree that a strong council will help the situation, but
| the problem with any leadership-by-committee model is the lack of
| quick decisions. Many times things come up that need
Lance Albertson wrote:
I thought of that while I was walking to a meeting..heh Basically,
Appoint two people to co-lead, or appoint one Lead and one Vice Lead.
That way there's some kind of accountability on the bare minimum level
and good coverage (hopefully).
I was also thinking about
Lance Albertson wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 08:42:48 -0500 Lance Albertson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| I'm afraid those days are in the past unless some kind of fork happens
| where the folks who think we need a leader go their way and the folks
| who prefer the
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 19:13:29 +0200 Thierry Carrez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| I for one was quite demotivated to see that the Infra team could
| overrule the Council (and did it twice). Fixing this is the first step
| in having a strong Council / leader / whatever.
Well, Infra have root and are
Thierry Carrez wrote:
[snip]
I for one was quite demotivated to see that the Infra team could
overrule the Council (and did it twice).
how? I don't recall either instance.
--Mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:53:32 -0400
Luis Francisco Araujo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lance Albertson wrote:
I thought of that while I was walking to a meeting..heh Basically,
Appoint two people to co-lead, or appoint one Lead and one Vice
Lead. That way there's some kind of accountability
On Thursday 24 August 2006 19:40, Mike Doty wrote:
Thierry Carrez wrote:
[snip]
I for one was quite demotivated to see that the Infra team could
overrule the Council (and did it twice).
how? I don't recall either instance.
AFAIR one thing was staff email adresses (sub domain or not) the
Marius Mauch wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:53:32 -0400
Luis Francisco Araujo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lance Albertson wrote:
I thought of that while I was walking to a meeting..heh Basically,
Appoint two people to co-lead, or appoint one Lead and one Vice
Lead. That way there's some kind of
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 13:14:10 -0500 Lance Albertson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Anyways, I'm not going to take any more flame bait since I'm sick and
| tired of this shit.
I'm glad to see that you're serious about addressing what other people
perceive to be issues with the current structure, and
Mike Doty wrote:
Thierry Carrez wrote:
[snip]
I for one was quite demotivated to see that the Infra team could
overrule the Council (and did it twice).
how? I don't recall either instance.
--Mike
I believe the latter was the revoking of Ciaran's CVS access prior to
his trial.
--
On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 13:14 -0500, Lance Albertson wrote:
For the record, I was waiting for those folks to come to us to resolve
it. Last I knew we had a partial resolution with the parties involved,
but shortly after that they just stopped pursing it. I figured if it
was
that important to
On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 20:55 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Lance Albertson wrote:
Anyways, I'm not going to take any more flame bait since I'm sick and
tired of this shit.
And my intention was not to revive that precise debate. I'm just saying
that for the leader (or strong council) to
Homer Parker wrote:
On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 13:14 -0500, Lance Albertson wrote:
For the record, I was waiting for those folks to come to us to resolve
it. Last I knew we had a partial resolution with the parties involved,
but shortly after that they just stopped pursing it. I figured if it
was
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 14:15:18 -0400
Luis Francisco Araujo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marius Mauch wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:53:32 -0400
Luis Francisco Araujo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lance Albertson wrote:
I thought of that while I was walking to a meeting..heh Basically,
Appoint
Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen wrote:
On Thursday 24 August 2006 09:52, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen wrote:
What? This doesn't make any sense. People bitching and moaning and
screaming all over -dev until no one else has any interest in pursuing
anything has nothing to do with
Alec Warner wrote:
Mike Doty wrote:
Thierry Carrez wrote:
[snip]
I for one was quite demotivated to see that the Infra team could
overrule the Council (and did it twice).
how? I don't recall either instance.
--Mike
I believe the latter was the revoking of Ciaran's CVS access prior
Marius Mauch wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 14:15:18 -0400
Luis Francisco Araujo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marius Mauch wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:53:32 -0400
Luis Francisco Araujo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lance Albertson wrote:
I thought of that while I was walking to a meeting..heh
Stuart Herbert wrote:
On 8/24/06, Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When I think about where Gentoo was when we turned into a democracy
years ago, and where Gentoo is now, I don't see much of a difference on
the large scale. We lack any global vision for where Gentoo is going, we
can't
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stuart Herbert wrote:
We've had a global vision for where Gentoo is going from before I
joined - Gentoo is here to create a source-based distribution where
each package is as close to what $UPSTREAM intended it to be as
possible. We're not
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 16:46:12 -0400
Luis Francisco Araujo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marius Mauch wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 14:15:18 -0400
Luis Francisco Araujo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marius Mauch wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:53:32 -0400
Luis Francisco Araujo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Marius Mauch wrote:
Donnie isn't much clearer either (it's mostly observations mixed with
personal feelings, not much in real problem anlysis).
Yeah, later I'll probably boil that down into something more bullet-pointy.
Thanks,
Donnie
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 14:54 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
It's very easy to claim that there are too many flamewars, even if
that isn't actually true. It's hard to claim Portage needs replacing,
the tree has huge QA issues, several archs are horribly unmaintained and
too many developers don't
On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 14:00 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
A distribution is more than just an entity that packages upstream
tarballs. I agree with your point, but it misses a large chunk of what
we do.
We also have releases.
Another thing that we do is fix bugs, even in upstream packages,
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 14:00 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Oh, gimme a break. Screaming about it on -dev for hundreds of posts
isn't just equivalent to a vote, it's better. It makes people think
there's more than 2 developers opposed to it.
Really? Even you didn't
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 14:54 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Most of these problems could be solved if we had a council that was far
less spineless, a council that's prepared to address the *real* issues
rather than doing nothing, a council that shows leadership and
58 matches
Mail list logo
