Mail archive

Re: [alpine-devel] Stripping down the governance model proposal

From: Allison Randal <>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 15:15:25 -0400

On 4/19/19 2:44 PM, Chloe Kudryavtsev wrote:
> Hopefully it's sufficiently clear by now that I'm quite strongly against
> the viewpoint you're outlining here. :)

Yup, understood. To be clear, I'm not advocating for any one alternative
way of going about this, my goal here is just to help facilitate the
community finding a path to change that works. The path that you
personally prefer may not be the best one for the community overall. I
think we can at least agree that the response you've gotten so far isn't
what you hoped for.

> As a summary of current arguments (in context of the current proposal; I
> think I mentioned it previously, but you can see it over at [1]).
> - Using "Core" is inherently confusing: we are separating it out into
> two separate entities.
> Calling either one "Core" will inherently give existing developers false
> ideas as to what that entity is.
> - "Base" is not particularly descriptive.
> I took it directly out of Gentoo, and it makes sense in some angles (i.e
> the "Base" of the Team "tree"), but it's caused enough confusion that a
> better name may be warranted.

Core at least has the advantage of already having an established meaning
in the community, so people can talk about changing that meaning in a
coherent and rational way. Starting over with something completely
different is much more difficult.

I don't personally have any attachment to the word Core, so I'm really
only advocating for holding the focus on changes that make the project
and community more effective. The name change may be more distracting
than helpful.

> As mentioned, [1] exists, but I'm not sure that's an appropriate place
> for the list.
> Would have to think about where to keep it.
> I think Kevin is supposed to be leading the working group now, so I'll
> CC him for this purpose as well.

Nod, I reviewed the developer handbook (0.1a), but it does seem pretty
tightly integrated with accepting the current proposal in its entirety.
So, agreed that it seems sensible to keep the handbook separate from the
list of things to consider working on.

> Regarding capturing the existing governance structure, it gets a bit
> complicated.
> We have an interim policy ([2], [3]), but it isn't really followed in
> practice.
> In practice, nothing is really defined very well, so consolidating it
> into text is... challenging.

Right, I wouldn't invest effort in cleaning up that interim policy, I'd
just commit those email messages exactly as they are as a file in the
repository (or page on a wiki, etc). That way, it is very clear to
everyone what we have now (not much), and what exactly is changing.


Received on Fri Apr 19 2019 - 15:15:25 UTC