[gentoo-dev] Re: Council Agenda 20100809 rev 01
On 7 August 2010 15:16, Brian Harring wrote: > I suspect we may not wind up being able to get to it in the coming > meeting, but I'd like g55 sorted. > > Specifically, if the authors of it (cc'd) want it to move forward, > request the council vote on it. If you don't want it voted on, mark > it moribund. As I stated at the last meeting, go ahead and vote on it. I still think it would be very useful for Gentoo to accept it, I just kinda lost hope after 2 or 3 times when it was supposed to be voted upon already. -- Best Regards Piotr Jaroszyński
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Council Agenda 20100809 rev 01
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 08-08-2010 11:28, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 16:47:42 +0530 > Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: >>> Uh, it *was* requested for a vote, and the Council decided instead >>> to vote on something else and not upon what was asked. >> >> So you ask again in the next meeting. And if it happens again, you >> file a protest. If it still happens, write a GLEP to prevent issues >> from being deferred indefinitely. Do I really need to give you ideas >> on how to stubbornly push proposals through? > > When we *did* repeatedly push for GLEP 55 discussion and acceptance, we > were told that we were pushing it too hard and that it was creating too > much noise. When we scale back and only give it a minimum of attention > when related topics come up, we're told we should be pushing over and > over again and protesting. > > Whichever way we go, someone's going to moan. I am glad to see, > however, that the only remaining objections to GLEP 55 are on purely > procedural matters... I have to agree with Ciaran in that the GLEP55 supporters did repeatedly push for its support and that it was a previous Council that didn't got a vote out about it and left it in "the limbo". At the time, quite a few Gentoo Developers got upset about how many times GLEP55 was brought to the council and the amount of traffic it generated in the gentoo-dev ml for months. I agree with Brian that GLEP55 could have been brought to council again by now, but there's nothing preventing the current council members to determine whether the author still wants it to be approved and put it to a vote so that we can set the status of this GLEP. >> There also comes a time when repeatedly bringing up a GLEP that you >> have no interest in getting approved becomes rude and >> counterproductive. > > GLEP 55 is brought up when it's the appropriate answer to a problem > someone raises. It is no longer being pushed purely on its own, > because when it was pushed on its own there were complaints that it > was being discussed too much. > > As for no interest in getting it approved, that's clearly nonsense as > you know fine well. Past experience has shown that repeatedly asking > for Council discussion on it does absolutely nothing to get it > approved, so we don't do that any more. > >>> It's extremely misleading of you to claim that it's the >>> responsibility of the GLEP 55 authors to push it to the Council at >>> this point. That was already tried several times, and got nowhere. >> >> It is excessively misleading of you to claim that Brian said that the >> GLEP 55 *authors* should push it to the Council. Nice strawman. He >> made a simple statement: The people who want the GLEP should either >> put it up for vote and settle it's status, or stop wasting everyone's >> time and let it die. > > Been there, done that, got nowhere. > - -- Regards, Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJMXpcMAAoJEC8ZTXQF1qEPf84P/1wOP3VTvpgR6EzTqaH5M18y QLxe89bvM5GTZ12Cdvgxy1c+o74ysRKsSisdxKXyJkyvlfj7DZcyfMEsdacSDH9r pynbG0LrlXx4qy2+IU9CrG0DUIWx6KnqyTMxzKkbK04cDMw2zQb7R5cQIzeAzyO1 RZJKjVGb+L6ob7OUwJyp9TOl/BQaOo95TIEVT0HWzBXsWjqlqasB4tSZHrxPgOvW GzUcN+36cDDjBhXEo7fOIhxBCwlYMAeFLpYb8fovOaEZgrphFczIJeAR5raPSinL 3hV0aupk7Spniir3gY+78gDROn4NByzy/UGtJyi53vaRpy6VqWvOLRGfRISTWGmM wQloPWsTRpTF///HBC8CreqC1AvGi3rM4zwWxA5GBPt0opA4HqDZDk+YurjQNie4 xWRcUNwZAJL7WmwPoH8ssdIsUlYY/KMt1dj2CJ1032AmfJNuzBIIpx+rxXrArisu cs7Pmg7hMaYhTY7rYtlgn4kQ1WVXUsKz1rFVmpMEHVwAnwfSErwuzdLL2JOUxXb1 ZYUIc2g0UPDKam7WkWhm/zlTbs/0/ZhEkEHWPlQnkEveEQ59GcRiH3xl21m993/o uN6yjpMRNBBZ+0owizMjwY9gJjFys8E3z6SZzEK04WY3s0kPjBFZJVkiAFR79X9s 723HNGkHH8iuCGfbr2hb =Cp/0 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Council Agenda 20100809 rev 01
On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 16:47:42 +0530 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: > > Uh, it *was* requested for a vote, and the Council decided instead > > to vote on something else and not upon what was asked. > > So you ask again in the next meeting. And if it happens again, you > file a protest. If it still happens, write a GLEP to prevent issues > from being deferred indefinitely. Do I really need to give you ideas > on how to stubbornly push proposals through? When we *did* repeatedly push for GLEP 55 discussion and acceptance, we were told that we were pushing it too hard and that it was creating too much noise. When we scale back and only give it a minimum of attention when related topics come up, we're told we should be pushing over and over again and protesting. Whichever way we go, someone's going to moan. I am glad to see, however, that the only remaining objections to GLEP 55 are on purely procedural matters... > There also comes a time when repeatedly bringing up a GLEP that you > have no interest in getting approved becomes rude and > counterproductive. GLEP 55 is brought up when it's the appropriate answer to a problem someone raises. It is no longer being pushed purely on its own, because when it was pushed on its own there were complaints that it was being discussed too much. As for no interest in getting it approved, that's clearly nonsense as you know fine well. Past experience has shown that repeatedly asking for Council discussion on it does absolutely nothing to get it approved, so we don't do that any more. > > It's extremely misleading of you to claim that it's the > > responsibility of the GLEP 55 authors to push it to the Council at > > this point. That was already tried several times, and got nowhere. > > It is excessively misleading of you to claim that Brian said that the > GLEP 55 *authors* should push it to the Council. Nice strawman. He > made a simple statement: The people who want the GLEP should either > put it up for vote and settle it's status, or stop wasting everyone's > time and let it die. Been there, done that, got nowhere. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Council Agenda 20100809 rev 01
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 03:05:34 -0700 > Brian Harring wrote: >> A tie, with a decision to revisit next meeting- the next meeting it >> was decided that yes, g55 is addressing what can be considered a real >> issue. And in the 14 months since then, no one has requested it be >> voted on, or revisited. > > Uh, it *was* requested for a vote, and the Council decided instead to > vote on something else and not upon what was asked. > So you ask again in the next meeting. And if it happens again, you file a protest. If it still happens, write a GLEP to prevent issues from being deferred indefinitely. Do I really need to give you ideas on how to stubbornly push proposals through? > If you want to try to get the Council to commit to something, feel > free. But asking the Council to vote on it hasn't worked so far, and > there comes a point where asking the same thing over and over again > becomes rude and counterproductive. > There also comes a time when repeatedly bringing up a GLEP that you have no interest in getting approved becomes rude and counterproductive. > It's extremely misleading of you to claim that it's the responsibility > of the GLEP 55 authors to push it to the Council at this point. That > was already tried several times, and got nowhere. > It is excessively misleading of you to claim that Brian said that the GLEP 55 *authors* should push it to the Council. Nice strawman. He made a simple statement: The people who want the GLEP should either put it up for vote and settle it's status, or stop wasting everyone's time and let it die. -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Council Agenda 20100809 rev 01
On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 11:18:03AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 03:05:34 -0700 > Brian Harring wrote: > > > GLEP 55 *was* put up for a vote, along with GLEP 54, on 20090514. > > > GLEP 54 was accepted subject to GLEP 55 being approved. The vote on > > > GLEP 55 was a tie. > > > > A tie, with a decision to revisit next meeting- the next meeting it > > was decided that yes, g55 is addressing what can be considered a real > > issue. And in the 14 months since then, no one has requested it be > > voted on, or revisited. > > It's extremely misleading of you to claim that it's the responsibility > of the GLEP 55 authors to push it to the Council at this point. That > was already tried several times, and got nowhere. Whether you like it or not, it *is* the authors responsibility. If you want something passed/accepted it's ultimately your responsibility to see it through to the finish- even if the last council dropped it on the ground. Hopefully to make this clear so that this claim never shows up again, shit happens. The "request for topics" and "agenda" emails that are sent out are your chance to request council discussion, to point out that they dropped something, etc. Things don't always make it onto the council agenda- you keep pushing, refining the proposal, etc, till you get it in there. Like it or not, that's the system. If in doubt, I'll just point out that both mtime and REQUIRED_USE were dropped multiple months- pushing them forward I deemed worthwhile so I kept bringing it up till it made it into an agenda instead of silently dropped. Either way, those are your options- if you want something implemented, ultimately it's your responsibility to see it through. I'd strongly argue this applies beyond just the council- for PMS as an example, even if you manage to get something approved ultimately if you want it to move forward the implementation falls to your plate. Same thing goes for cvs/git, either you're reliant on other peoples time, or you contribute your own time to try and move it forward. For the Heinlein fans, TANSTAFL is appropriate. Either way, it's on the agenda. In the future ask for stuff to be readded if it falls off, saves a lot of grief in the process. ~harring pgpb7ABVhBVvY.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Council Agenda 20100809 rev 01
On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 03:05:34 -0700 Brian Harring wrote: > > GLEP 55 *was* put up for a vote, along with GLEP 54, on 20090514. > > GLEP 54 was accepted subject to GLEP 55 being approved. The vote on > > GLEP 55 was a tie. > > A tie, with a decision to revisit next meeting- the next meeting it > was decided that yes, g55 is addressing what can be considered a real > issue. And in the 14 months since then, no one has requested it be > voted on, or revisited. Uh, it *was* requested for a vote, and the Council decided instead to vote on something else and not upon what was asked. If you want to try to get the Council to commit to something, feel free. But asking the Council to vote on it hasn't worked so far, and there comes a point where asking the same thing over and over again becomes rude and counterproductive. It's extremely misleading of you to claim that it's the responsibility of the GLEP 55 authors to push it to the Council at this point. That was already tried several times, and got nowhere. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Council Agenda 20100809 rev 01
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dne 8.8.2010 12:05, Brian Harring napsal(a): > On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 10:10:01AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 01:55:26 -0700 >> Brian Harring wrote: >>> Put it to a vote then, rather than flaming every few months that g55 >>> solves all EAPI issues/world hunger. >>> >>> Seriously, if the people wanting g55 can't be bothered to try and >>> make their proposal accepted/official, than all they're doing is >>> trolling/flaming/bitching, and wasting other peoples time. >> >> GLEP 55 *was* put up for a vote, along with GLEP 54, on 20090514. GLEP >> 54 was accepted subject to GLEP 55 being approved. The vote on GLEP 55 >> was a tie. > > A tie, with a decision to revisit next meeting- the next meeting it > was decided that yes, g55 is addressing what can be considered a real > issue. And in the 14 months since then, no one has requested it be > voted on, or revisited. > > That's the thing; the quibbling in details is lovely, as is the > repeated rehashing of the same technical matter, over and over, but > the path required to get it approved is established. > > Push it to the council and ask for a vote. They drop it from their > plate, push it back to the council again. That route at least has the > chance of being productive. Hell, run for council if you're tired of > them dropping things. > > Instead we've got continual sniping over the damned glep instead of > taking the proactive steps. Either way, unless I get beat down by > the other council members this will be on the next council agenda. > > If it can be squeezed into the coming monday meeting, I'd prefer it, > but it's short notice I realize. > > ~harring We can nominate it for next meeting, but not this one, we cant asure that all members are aware of all details for glep-55 so they need some time to investigate them. Tom -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkxeg6oACgkQHB6c3gNBRYd2NgCeJrmHrapWDHqpyXlnn8c+HLhJ xUoAoLDRfSRc+ejByoMQ/1v+0O1VyyEb =KGMd -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Council Agenda 20100809 rev 01
On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 10:10:01AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 01:55:26 -0700 > Brian Harring wrote: > > Put it to a vote then, rather than flaming every few months that g55 > > solves all EAPI issues/world hunger. > > > > Seriously, if the people wanting g55 can't be bothered to try and > > make their proposal accepted/official, than all they're doing is > > trolling/flaming/bitching, and wasting other peoples time. > > GLEP 55 *was* put up for a vote, along with GLEP 54, on 20090514. GLEP > 54 was accepted subject to GLEP 55 being approved. The vote on GLEP 55 > was a tie. A tie, with a decision to revisit next meeting- the next meeting it was decided that yes, g55 is addressing what can be considered a real issue. And in the 14 months since then, no one has requested it be voted on, or revisited. That's the thing; the quibbling in details is lovely, as is the repeated rehashing of the same technical matter, over and over, but the path required to get it approved is established. Push it to the council and ask for a vote. They drop it from their plate, push it back to the council again. That route at least has the chance of being productive. Hell, run for council if you're tired of them dropping things. Instead we've got continual sniping over the damned glep instead of taking the proactive steps. Either way, unless I get beat down by the other council members this will be on the next council agenda. If it can be squeezed into the coming monday meeting, I'd prefer it, but it's short notice I realize. ~harring pgp3ewrMlRb0S.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Council Agenda 20100809 rev 01
On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 01:55:26 -0700 Brian Harring wrote: > Put it to a vote then, rather than flaming every few months that g55 > solves all EAPI issues/world hunger. > > Seriously, if the people wanting g55 can't be bothered to try and > make their proposal accepted/official, than all they're doing is > trolling/flaming/bitching, and wasting other peoples time. GLEP 55 *was* put up for a vote, along with GLEP 54, on 20090514. GLEP 54 was accepted subject to GLEP 55 being approved. The vote on GLEP 55 was a tie. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Council Agenda 20100809 rev 01
On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 08:46:07AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 15:48:32 -0500 > William Hubbs wrote: > > Regardless of my personal opinions about the technical issues on this > > glep, I agree with the above statement. I am personally tired of > > seeing the discussion flare up every few months and go nowhere. > > Have you considered that it flares up every few months because every > few months people want new functionality from EAPIs that can't be > delivered using the existing EAPI mechanisms? Put it to a vote then, rather than flaming every few months that g55 solves all EAPI issues/world hunger. Seriously, if the people wanting g55 can't be bothered to try and make their proposal accepted/official, than all they're doing is trolling/flaming/bitching, and wasting other peoples time. ~harring pgptz5qcDxGYG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Council Agenda 20100809 rev 01
On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 15:48:32 -0500 William Hubbs wrote: > Regardless of my personal opinions about the technical issues on this > glep, I agree with the above statement. I am personally tired of > seeing the discussion flare up every few months and go nowhere. Have you considered that it flares up every few months because every few months people want new functionality from EAPIs that can't be delivered using the existing EAPI mechanisms? -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Council Agenda 20100809 rev 01
On Sat, Aug 07, 2010 at 06:16:30AM -0700, Brian Harring wrote: > On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 09:26:46PM +0200, Tom Chvvvtal wrote: > > Hi, > > since I am this meetings girl for everything here is first pass on our > > agenda. > > > > I am adding this mail only to g-dev and g-dev-announce to see if > > everyone notice, sorry if it slip your radar. Also if you have something > > to say on this mail please reply to gentoo-dev, or you will render me > > quite sad about thread breaking. > > > > Without much ado here goes THE PLAN: > > > > 1) allow all members to show up (5 min) > > 2) voting > > 2a) we have nothing to vote this time, nobody wanted anything YAY :) > > 3) discussion > > 3a) from last council meeting: the mailing list situation > > 3b) from last council meeting: eclass API changes > > 3c) EAPI 4 status (jmbsvicetto nominate this so we actualy do something new) > > 4) Bugs assigned to council@ in bugzilla and their progress > > 5) select the chair for following meeting > > 6) open floor: community/developers can smash us here :) > > Z) buy some cookies (30 min) > > I suspect we may not wind up being able to get to it in the coming > meeting, but I'd like g55 sorted. > > Specifically, if the authors of it (cc'd) want it to move forward, > request the council vote on it. If you don't want it voted on, mark > it moribund. > > The purpose behind this is to put to end this discussion rather than > having it flare up and make a mess every few months. > > Simply put, it's nothing but divisive noise at this point with no real > new technical discourse occuring- meaning it's realistically time for > a decision (either push it to a vote or put it to bed). Regardless of my personal opinions about the technical issues on this glep, I agree with the above statement. I am personally tired of seeing the discussion flare up every few months and go nowhere. William pgp98wTIaUPKl.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: Council Agenda 20100809 rev 01
On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 09:26:46PM +0200, Tom Chvvvtal wrote: > Hi, > since I am this meetings girl for everything here is first pass on our > agenda. > > I am adding this mail only to g-dev and g-dev-announce to see if > everyone notice, sorry if it slip your radar. Also if you have something > to say on this mail please reply to gentoo-dev, or you will render me > quite sad about thread breaking. > > Without much ado here goes THE PLAN: > > 1) allow all members to show up (5 min) > 2) voting > 2a) we have nothing to vote this time, nobody wanted anything YAY :) > 3) discussion > 3a) from last council meeting: the mailing list situation > 3b) from last council meeting: eclass API changes > 3c) EAPI 4 status (jmbsvicetto nominate this so we actualy do something new) > 4) Bugs assigned to council@ in bugzilla and their progress > 5) select the chair for following meeting > 6) open floor: community/developers can smash us here :) > Z) buy some cookies (30 min) I suspect we may not wind up being able to get to it in the coming meeting, but I'd like g55 sorted. Specifically, if the authors of it (cc'd) want it to move forward, request the council vote on it. If you don't want it voted on, mark it moribund. The purpose behind this is to put to end this discussion rather than having it flare up and make a mess every few months. Simply put, it's nothing but divisive noise at this point with no real new technical discourse occuring- meaning it's realistically time for a decision (either push it to a vote or put it to bed). ~harring pgpnfjRbkpmei.pgp Description: PGP signature
