[Sugar-devel] Gambiarra game

[Bernie Innocenti]

+1 from me as well.

For the record: I drafted the current policy a couple of years ago in
the attempt to give activity developers a clearly documented process
that they can just follow without getting stuck into a long policy
discussion.

As Daniel noted, the current process seems a bit too laborious and I
would support shortening it in the future. To me, "the Activity Team
coordinator decides on a case-by-case basis" would work too. The
important point is documenting the process in advance so everyone knows
how to handle future cases.


On 12/24/2013 04:22 PM, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> +1
> 
> On Tuesday, 24 December 2013, Walter Bender wrote:
> 
>     It is current and we should be following it, IMHO.
> 
>     -walter
> 
>     On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarvaez at gmail.com
>     <javascript:;>> wrote:
>     > (Assuming the policy is not obsolete or something, I think we
>     should move it
>     > to developer.sugarlabs.org <http://developer.sugarlabs.org>).
>     >
>     >
>     > On 24 December 2013 21:51, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarvaez at gmail.com
>     <javascript:;>> wrote:
>     >>
>     >> By the way, we seem to have a non responsive maintainer policy
>     already.
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>
>     http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Activity_Team/Policy_for_nonresponsive_maintainers
>     >>
>     >> Any reason we are not following it?
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> On 24 December 2013 21:49, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarvaez at gmail.com
>     <javascript:;>> wrote:
>     >>>
>     >>> On 24 December 2013 15:10, Aleksey Lim <alsroot at sugarlabs.org
>     <javascript:;>> wrote:
>     >>>>
>     >>>> On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 08:49:02AM -0500, Walter Bender wrote:
>     >>>> > IMHO, the git rep is less the issue than the ownership on
>     ASLO. git is
>     >>>> > set up for forks, ASLO less obvious. I can give Alan joint
>     ownership
>     >>>> > on ASLO. (The versions available from Luiz will still be
>     available
>     >>>> > even after Alan uploads new ones.)
>     >>>>
>     >>>> I don't see how ASLO is critically different in comparison with
>     git.sl.o
>     >>>> in this case (passing ownership).
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>> ASLO is more similar to a distribution than to gitorious
>     repositories and
>     >>> distributions usually have non-responsive maintainer policies
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/beyond-pkging.html#mia-qa
>     >>>
>     >>>>
>     >>>> At the end, the important thing is that
>     >>>> both versions should be available for users (the original
>     version, and
>     >>>> the one which was improved by new developers). It is hardly
>     possible to
>     >>>> have only one download entity [on ASLO].
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>> If we have to choose, I think it's more important to make an
>     improved
>     >>> activity available then old versions provided by the original
>     maintainer.
>     >>>
>     >>>>
>     >>>> In any case, that might be a topic for SN (as an ASLO's superset)
>     >>>> to handle this kind of issues in the future.
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>  We can reevaluate when SN takes over, but given the current
>     >>> infrastructure I think giving Alan joint ownership is the most
>     pragmatic
>     >>> approach.
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> --
>     >> Daniel Narvaez
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > --
>     > Daniel Narvaez
> 
> 
> 
>     --
>     Walter Bender
>     Sugar Labs
>     http://www.sugarlabs.org
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Daniel Narvaez
> 


-- 
 _ // Bernie Innocenti
 \X/  http://codewiz.org