On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 21:54:44 -0700 Daniel Campbell <z...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> That's what I think this drama is about; changes being pushed from > people who don't work on games, then leaving these game maintainers (and > users) in the dark without a "correct" way to achieve what they're > after. We can do better than that, and it's solvable in a technical > manner, which is why I'm focused on it. I'd really appreciate if you did some research before accusing people. > On the political side... > > Do teams hold any authority (or veto power, whatever you want to call > it) over their own ebuilds? Is it reasonable to rip functionality out > from under a group of developers and tell them to deal with it? > > I think teams deserve autonomy over their own ebuilds, [...] No, they do not and I will not allow that to happen ever again. And I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one here that was unhappy with the way Games team pushed everyone around over the years. If you want autonomy, fork Gentoo or use your own repository. The core Gentoo repository is community-maintained -- either live with it, or leave. We do not need more people causing massive community damage for years with nobody being bold enough to stop them. People and teams have reasonable right to develop policies and maintain their own packages. However, they have no right to assume sole ownership of all packages with generic characteristic, and hold it for years while preventing anyone from having any saying on anything. Rephrasing Rich's words, how would you feel if I established 'Text editors' project and claimed final saying on every single text editor in Gentoo? Then I would develop policies I find useful, ignore any input, ignore join requests and discourage anyone from contributing. Is that the Gentoo you desire? > and should > ideally follow QA guidelines *where reasonable*. Any good QA team should > have iron-clad reasons behind their decisions, and answers for > 'what-ifs' that exist outside of the ideal perfection that QA tends to > operate in. The whole point of QA is to provide good quality *everywhere*, and it is *unacceptable* to have developers decide if they want to follow policies or not. It is reasonable to adjust the policies as necessary, or allow grace periods. But there is no point in having policies that are fully optional depending on the mood of the developer. That said, this is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. This isn't QA's decision. It's a long process started by individual developers *interested in helping out with games* years ago, which ended up with Council appeal. The source of the policy is the Council, not QA. QA is merely concerned with the fact that Games team ignores the policies established by the Council. This results in two different layouts being deployed over the repository which results in increased confusion (which you are victim of), and decreased quality. QA offers to help in solving that. > Removing eclasses without really good reason and without replacements > for missing use cases simply shouldn't happen. I wouldn't want that done > to me, and I'd definitely not (knowingly) help someone else do it. Your disagreement with the rationale does not make it bad. -- Best regards, Michał Górny <http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>
pgpr0npxdXcCX.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature