> On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 02:12:48 -0700 "Daniel Robbins" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote >> Right now, you're effectively doing an end-run around the entire >> Gentoo management structure. Fortunately for you, it doesn't look like >> anyone cares. > > Not really. We're working on a document, as requested by the Gentoo > management structure, and when it's at a good enough state that we're > ready to have it discussed, it will be opened up for comments by Gentoo > developers, and once they're satisfied it will be submitted to the > Gentoo management structure for approval or otherwise. > > This is fairly standard practice... > > What is not standard is all the 'input' from third parties who don't > know what PMS is, who is working on it, what its goals are or what it > says. I get the impression that a lot of this comes about merely > because a few people who don't have anything better to do see certain > names associated with it and decide to go on the attack -- knowledge of > the topic at hand is considered largely irrelevant... >
So you are saying you cannot see Daniel's point of view at all? That Gentoo should perhaps have input on a specification whose goal is to essentially define what a Gentoo Package Manager should be? Because right now the input is very limited. Gentoo developers are working on it, the council can see it, but other interested parties cannot. He sees that as a problem. I tend to disagree with his point of view in this case; but I can at least see where he is coming from and the point he is trying to make. Some people want transparency in the process. >> Really, I find this weird and ambiguous and you should probably be >> reinstated as a dev or be bumped off of PMS, which should be managed >> by Gentoo developers only. > > Why does it matter whether it's written by Gentoo developers? What > matters is that it's written by people who know what they're talking > about and who can write reasonably decent technical material, and as the > primary author of the devmanual, a whole load of ebuilds, several > eclasses and of the only fully independent reimplementation of ebuild > (Pkgcore is in parts based upon Portage code -- whether or not this is > a good thing is irrelevant to this discussion), I'd say I qualify in > that area... Because it is difficult to determine 'people who know what they are talking about'. I would say Brian Harring is one of those, but I have a feeling you would disagree with me. All I really know is that I am not one of those people. I think this is once again part of Daniel's point. Interested parties should be able to collaborate (even if it's in a private repo to keep prying eyes away). But you are basically turning away a portion of interested parties. I can see why he thinks this is a bad approach. As I said; I personally don't care. I trust the council will take a good approach when PMS is ready for peer review. But at the same time I can't just blatantly discard Daniel's ideas as hogwash because I can understand his position. -Alec -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
