On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 6:52 AM, Michael Palimaka <kensing...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 07/08/2014 07:45 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >> >> 1. that the games team has authority over the actual maintainers >> on every game ebuild, >> > > Why is Council intervention needed to abolish these policies? They're > not binding. > As far as I know, the games team has no special status so like any other > project they can recommend whatever they want - nobody is obliged to > listen (I certainly don't). >
Gentoo projects should probably be viewed as having more authority than random package maintainers, though not in any absolute sense. However, they should also generally allow anybody to join them, and must have an annual election of lead. The Games project hasn't been migrated to the Wiki and the page hasn't been touched since 2006, so I'm a bit skeptical of that (though for all I know they're active and the membership/lead just hasn't changed). To the extent that we give projects a preferential status with regard to authority/etc it really should only be to the extent that projects "uphold their side of the bargain" by following the rules. Bureaucracy aside, for something as broad as "Games" I think we should keep distro-level policy on the light side. I don't think that it makes sense to try to establish a security model that amounts to SELinux-light. Admins of multi-user systems have much better tools these days to control what happens on their systems. I don't have a problem with generally trying to follow FHS, but I don't see the need for debates over where kpat goes. But, that is my own personal two cents. I'm interested in what active members of the games project have to offer. Rich
