On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 2:17 PM, hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > I don't know. Stick to your word, maybe?
I'm glad we have you here to be our conscience. :) I'm sure this will go on the next agenda. However, the decision to kick the can was actually an intentional one. We were hoping to see more interest in fixing the games team and it didn't turn up. We didn't want to cause more harm than good. > > So far, neither the council, nor QA, nor ComRel were particularly > helpful with the situation. Well, the problem is that nobody wants to clean up games. Short of the council members joining the games team and doing the work themselves there isn't really anything that is going to make you happy. Another solution is to just treeclean all the games, and that certainly isn't going to make anybody happy. We get it. Everybody wants somebody else to spend a lot of time doing something that will make their life easier for free. It is a pretty common theme in FOSS. Certainly we're not the only distro where I've seen this sort of complaint come up. I think we try to find a good balance in Gentoo in empowering devs and still providing most of the benefits of centralization to users and each other. > > If the team is disbanded, then regular tree policy applies and > everything goes through the regular community discussion/decision > channels without the need of QA putting their prefixes/hats everywhere. So far the QA team hasn't done anything at all on this issue. In fact the QA lead suggested that he didn't want to take the initiative. Perhaps you should wait for QA to actually do something before you appeal it to the council, and wait for the council to deny your appeal before you complain about it here. And QA doesn't just govern packages maintained by project teams. In fact, those are the sorts of packages they /should/ have to spend the least time worrying about. Of course, they're free to pursue policy violations wherever they see them. In any case, I don't find the whole argument about "who has permission to implement this really good idea" debate very helpful. I'd rather focus on whether it is a really good idea. If it is, let's make it happen. I don't want to turn into Debian where after it is clear that most people want something to happen they go back and forth for six months with 14 resolutions and 12 committees and 85 appeals to parliamentary procedure all arguing over who has the power to do what. Heaven forbid that there are two developers somewhere who are forced to do something without as much due process as the US government affords people accused of murder. This isn't the US Senate. If devs ever want that kind of operation, do me a favor and elect somebody else to Council. This is just a discussion right now. I think most of the arguments pro and con have been made, and if there are others people can make them. I just don't think it is helpful to argue about who is allowed to raise the topic in the first place, or who is allowed to make the decision. QA has fairly broad discretion in our current setup, and the Council has jurisdiction over just about anything that isn't financial/legal in nature. Heck, some have argued for having a project leader / dictator role to cut through red tape. We don't need to argue about whether we're allowed to make progress. > > If a new team is constituted, then they might establish new policies, > also without QA dictating anything. And I would give that some time, > which means don't start funny mass commits/conversions. > Well, that "new team" has had months since they failed to resolve the last crisis, and it has weeks before the next council meeting. If the "new team" hasn't even gotten around to acting like they actually exist by then, I wouldn't expect everybody else to hold their breath. -- Rich
