On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 9:20 AM, William L. Thomson Jr. <wlt...@o-sinc.com> wrote: > > Which was one of the last articles Gentoo mentioned in on Distro watch, till I > believe the OnHub router. Based around that topic, quoting Ciaran. > > http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20070312#future > > Most interesting about that article. If you read the last two paragraphs. I > think some of that could be said about the state of things still. >
Sure, and it probably will be the state of things 20 years from now, with Gentoo still having "little chance that even the minimum of release and bug-fixing goals will be met" and suffering a "rapid downfall of the distribution" :) The predictions of those paragraphs have not in fact come to pass. Would you agree that "if a person who repeatedly engages in personal attacks against other developers is permitted to remain with the project, then there is something wrong with the way the distribution is managed?" I find it a bit interesting that half of this article is about a failure to enforce a Code of Conduct that you don't actually think we ought to have, and that drobbins left in part because it wasn't being enforced. Sometimes forks exist because individuals don't get along or have strong ideas for how things should work to the exclusion of other ideas of how things should work. That's fine, there is nothing wrong with forks. The current meta-structure of Gentoo is structured around the vision that Gentoo is a place where people can make what they want of it, and the governance bodies of Gentoo are mostly about dealing with conflicting goals, not picking winners. Sure, the Council could take a much more pro-active stance and say "Gentoo needs to be the best distro for xyz so we should get rid of all this Java crap" but that would be silly because the two aren't mutually exclusive and telling people to not work on Java isn't going to magically inspire them to work on something else instead. -- Rich
