Thomas Cort wrote:
- Cut the number of packages in half (put the removed ebuilds in
community run overlays)
Removing part of the market will make us weaker, not stronger.
- Formal approval process (or at least strict criteria) for adding
new packages
Though I doubt bureaucracy will help, adding some strict criteria
doesn't seem a bad idea.
- Make every dev a member of at least 1 arch team
That's a sound idea, that way some herds (see KDE) won't have to be
searching for testers in every arch because _strangely_ one of the most
daily used desktop environments doesn't have many users among the testers.
- Double the number of developers with aggressive recruiting
Do you plan on sacrificing quality?
- No competing projects
If the projects are small, that shouldn't be an issue. (i.e. does not
imply much effort)
- New projects must have 5 devs, a formal plan, and be approved by the
council
What are the reasons for a minimum of 5 developers? Any argument for
that? What do you understand for 'formal plan'?
- Devs can only belong to 5 projects at most
What if the projects are small enough? How about belonging to the
infrastructure project for instance, does it count?
- Drop all arches and Gentoo/Alt projects except Linux on amd64,
ppc32/64, sparc, and x86
Again, reducing the market isn't the way IMHO.
- Reduce the number of projects by eliminating the dead, weak,
understaffed, and unnecessary projects
Please define 'unnecessary projects'.
- Project status reports once a month for every project
I agree with this one. A monthly report might bring some order and light :)
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
