On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 09:21:08 -0400 "Thomas Cort" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The "minority" arches like mips, sparc etc seem to get along quite > > happily. > > Not the "minority" arches like m68k, s390, alpha, ... I haven't seen any significant numbers of complaints. What exactly about those arches do you think is a problem? > > > - Reduce the number of projects by eliminating the dead, weak, > > > understaffed, and unnecessary projects > > > > Weak: Be more specific. What are the "weak" projects, and why? > > Projects that don't achieve anything, have no goals, and don't show > any promise of doing anything productive. By "specific" I meant which projects exactly - i.e name some, and explain how the weakness you perceive is a problem. > > Understaffed: this issue manifests itself as a project being slow to > > update. However the only place this is an issue is for security > > issue management. Another solution to under-staffing is to reduce > > expectations. > > The more we reduce expectations, the more it will hurt users. We > should be raising expectations and following through. You should only raise expectations when you know you can follow through, not the other way around. Raising expectations before being able to follow through leads to disappointment, which is bad. > > Unnecessary: again, be more specific. What are the "unnecessary" > > projects, and why? > > Projects that aren't needed to further Gentoo and are not helpful to > users or developers. Again, by "specific" I meant which projects, by name, do you think meet those criteria. Explain why you consider those projects to be a hindrance to users or developers. -- Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
