[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    [gentoo-dev]  Re: Gentoo Council Reminder for April 23
From:       Duncan <1i5t5.duncan () cox ! net>
Date:       2009-04-24 8:34:07
Message-ID: pan.2009.04.24.08.34.07 () cox ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

Mart Raudsepp <leio@gentoo.org> posted 1240508221.2635.18.camel@localhost,
excerpted below, on  Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:37:01 +0300:

> I think the whole council should understand why something received a
> "no" from someone, as they might be important technical (or subjective)
> arguments against having that in EAPI-3

> It is quite likely that almost all features will get a majority "yes"
> vote when taken individually because not all council members have seen
> the problems a few of the council members have. [T]he whole of the
> council should consider the objections of an individual council member,
> so that potentially bad things don't end up accepted based on some kind
> of an uninformed majority vote or concensus.

[Noting that this is now after the meeting...]

While you bring up a worthwhile point, keep in mind that based on 
previous council discussion the current vote is preliminary -- the idea 
being to select a set of features that the council would like in EAPI-3 
for the PM folks to work on, then set a goal date for implementation.

At that date, the intent is that the council will take a look at what has 
actually been implemented and how, checking any implementation problems 
that occurred in the process, and /then/ vote a final yea or nay on 
individual EAPI-3 features.  Since they will have already been 
implemented in test-EAPI form (with ebuilds using the non-final features 
not allowed into the tree until EAPI-3 is finalized with those features 
in it), once the vote is in, it should be a simple matter of flipping a 
switch turning on an approved EAPI-3.

Thus, while knowing the individual reasons now, for the preliminary vote, 
may prevent work on features ultimately voted down and thus is a good 
thing, it's not the end of the world if the current vote fails to take 
into account a valid objection.  In fact if my read is correct, that's 
one reason the council decided to do it this way.  It prevents voting in 
a standard that's difficult to implement, thus avoiding imposing 
potentially difficult or impossible mandates on an after all volunteer 
work force, with all the practical ugliness that entails.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]