В Вск, 15/06/2008 в 15:50 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh пишет: > On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 18:42:28 +0400 > Peter Volkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > By formalizing I mean the following: call for and form PMS team. Team > > must represent portage developers and could paludis and pkgcore. All > > suggestions for PMS draft must go into bugzilla and after patch for > > PMS is created PMS team members should vote on that patch. After > > voting patch is applied or discarded. Until there are open bugs in > > bugzilla council can not approve PMS. > > How would a voting system be better than the current "if anyone doesn't > like it, don't commit it until whatever they don't like is fixed" > process?
Voting makes the process converging. It helps to avoid same arguments in the next cycle of discussions. If you failed to find arguments and convince majority - you have to live with decision which you don't agree with. > Do you think that the differences between the proportion of patches > from 'Paludis people' that are accepted or rejected and the proportion > of patches from 'Portage people' or 'Pkgcore people' indicates a > problem? No. Part of the problem is that working group on PMS does not include developers from other PMs. > В Вск, 15/06/2008 в 16:04 +0100, David Leverton пишет: > zmedico is on the alias, although he seems to have been focussing on > working on Portage itself. genone, from what I've seen, seems to be > indifferent at best to the idea of PMS. But without their voice I don't see how council could approve PMS. As it was told in this thread at least some parts of PMS does not reflect the things portage works. Thus by silence it's not possible to assume that they agree with PMS. > I'm curious as to why you think the actively contributing members of the PMS > team aren't acting in Gentoo's interests, though. Actually I don't think so. That's why I don't want to dismiss PMS and I'm looking how to make it "official". But as I see asking council another time to discuss PMS does not makes it official... So we should look for other ways to get from situation. Basically what was suggested is to put in one team all three PM developers, but taking into account that sometimes it's hard for them to discuss things - voting should make this working group to proceed. And yes, without portage developers in PMS team (I even think portage developers should have 50% of voices in voting and council to resolve moot situations) I don't think Gentoo could call final PMS "official". The reasoning is simple - how we can call PMS "official" if none of Gentoo portage gurus voiced to support it? And if portage developers are not interested in PMS I don't think council could do something besides trying to convince them or until new portage developer arise and fix/approve PMS... You know the rules: want to change things happen in Gentoo - became active developer. In this case you have to became active portage developer. -- Peter. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
