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 problem the wrong way. Instead of trying to have Gentoo be the distro, perhaps Gentoo can be thought of as a provider of infrastructure and tools to allow 'sub-distros' to flourish. THere are many projects which now are trying to pull Gentoo in many different directions, such as bianary distro vs. enterprise distro. If we remove "Gentoo as distro" from out thinking and replace it with "Gentoo as provider of tools and infrastucture", These two seemingly contradictory goals can each flourish in their own way. Haveing sub-distros, lack of a better term, is not new to Gentoo. Hardened has their own LiveCD, profile and tools. I feel this can be nurtured. Allowing the Binanary group to move in one direction, and 'tweakers' in an other, and die-hard security people in yet another, while not severely conficting with each other. Maybe what we need is a clearer definition of what each herd does? I am considering writing a GLEP about this, having each herd answer three questions periodicly (say 6mths). - What do we want to do? - How are we going to get there? - How to we measure success? and /maybe/ add a section about current devs and AT/HTs. Just a thought. -- Lares Moreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | LRU: 400755 http://counter.li.org lares/irc.freenode.net | Gentoo x86 Arch Tester | ::0 Alberta, Canada Public Key: 0D46BB6E @ subkeys.pgp.net | Encrypted Mail Preferred Key fingerprint = 0CA3 E40D F897 7709 3628 C5D4 7D94 483E 0D46 BB6E
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
