Matthew Marlowe wrote: > 1) enterprise devs form their own mailing list and/or herd and spend the > next several > weeks attempting to come up with a consensus on a GLEP that might > realistically > address their needs. There is no need for the details to be worked out on > the -dev > ml. Once a consensus is reached, it can be proposed and discussed on -dev > like > all other GLEPS. Note, that I think this thread can be mined for a rather > comprehensive > list of issues that would need to be addressed by the GLEP.
This has already happened in the past. We got to a point, and then people lost interest/got busy. > 2) Other devs should probably realize that this isnt a one way street. > Enterprise devs > have contributed to many other areas of gentoo and if they are dissatisfied > it might impact > other areas of gentoo development. Furthermore, as the gentoo foundation is > a rather > cash poor organization, enterprise development might be a way to bring in > badly needed > funds without compromising our principles or greatly increasing the overall > developer > workload. These issues would have to be addressed by the GLEP, but this isnt > an issue > that only impacts enterprise devs. I can't tell you how many times this topic has come up between -dev and -server (at least dozen or so). And EVERY time its come up, everyone decided to put their $0.02 in and so we have 100 different ways to accomplish something. History will repeat itself, it tends to do that. > 3) It might be the consensus that there is no solution here. We should all > be willing to face > that and be willing to take the consequences if it is true. Either way, the > enterprise support > aspect has been a significant source of confusion and we need to get a clear > and fair > resolution determined and communicated to the entire gentoo community within > the next > few months. The problem I foresee is that nobody will be able to decide on a final implementation that makes everyone happy. Everyone will want their method to be used and it'll get no where. That's kind of why I think an outside project that has its own set of goals and management will accomplish more of the outcome we need. Sure, we can make another TLPish thing for server, but we'll end up waiting for months while people decide on the GLEP(s) that it may have to achieve to finish it properly. I'd hate to see such an outside project alienate itself from Gentoo, rather they could offer their patches/fixes in return. >From what I can see, Gentoo itself is really moving towards a premiere desktop OS. Most of the goals/ideals for having a desktop ideals are totally different than a server based one. I feel that both sides will have too many conflicting things that will hamper development. By doing an outside project, we can define things in portage/other areas that won't break things for the general gentoo project. They could even 'start from scratch' and possibly fix the legacy issues right off. It gives the enterprise group the flexibility of doing whatever they need to do without the backlash of everyone else. Just my thoughts on the whole situation. -- Lance Albertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager --- GPG Public Key: <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc> Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1 4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742 ramereth/irc.freenode.net
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
