On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:10 AM, hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 08/21/2015 08:50 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, hasufell wrote: >> >>> Like allowing that devs may or may not use games.eclass, so that >>> users cannot expect consistent behavior for games anymore? >> >> Sorry, but that is not accurate. Usage of games.eclass has been >> deprecated by QA [1] (with the council's mandate [2]), so devs should >> not use it any longer. >> >> Maybe QA should be stricter in enforcing its policies, in order to >> avoid such false impressions in future? >> >> Ulrich >> >> [1] >> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Quality_Assurance/Meeting_Summaries#Games_team_policies_issue >> [2] https://projects.gentoo.org/council/meeting-logs/20140812-summary.txt >> > > > May I remind you that > > """ > - Motion: "The council encourages the games team to accept join > requests and elect a lead. In the event they don't elect a lead > within 6 weeks, we will consider the team as dysfunctional and thus > disband it." > Accepted with 6 yes votes and 1 abstention. > """ > > has never happened? There has been no vote, but the team has not been > considered dysfunctional. Instead we are just acting like it doesn't > exist, more or less. Sounds good?
Well, we did say we would disband it. We just didn't follow through. Would you be happier if we did disband it? The goal was to try to leave the structure there in case anybody steps up, but I don't really see the harm in acting as if the team doesn't exist. It essentially doesn't. Disbanding it would just make it formal. Sure, we did drop this, but I don't really see this line of argument actually accomplishing anything productive. Creating a games team that fixes these issues would be productive. Letting others fix them is also productive. Nobody is opposed to having a games project - it just seems like nobody cares enough to actually make it happen. That's ok - we can still get things done. -- Rich
