Re: [oe-commits] Koen Kooi : Revert "ecore: catch up with the new SONAMEs; move to autosplitting"

Re: [oe-commits] Koen Kooi : Revert "ecore: catch up with the new SONAMEs; move to autosplitting"

[Michael 'Mickey' Lauer]

I have net seen you getting a majority for this revert :(

Re: [oe-commits] Koen Kooi : Revert "ecore: catch up with the new SONAMEs; move to autosplitting"

[Philip Balister]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 678 bytes --]

Michael 'Mickey' Lauer wrote:
> I have net seen you getting a majority for this revert :(

I did not ack it outright because I was hoping we could have resolved 
the upgradability issue first, without turning this into you versus Koen 
again. Both Graeme and I have expressed concern that the commits in 
question should be reviewed.

There are a lot of people using OE, with divergent goals. Some people 
use it for developing software and do not need package upgrade paths, 
others are maintaining distros for people that do use the upgrade paths. 
People need to be sensitive to others needs when deleting "old" recipes, 
breaking upgraded paths, etc.

Philip

[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature, Size: 3303 bytes --]

Re: [oe-commits] Koen Kooi : Revert "ecore: catch up with the new SONAMEs; move to autosplitting"

[Michael 'Mickey' Lauer]

On Saturday 25 April 2009 15:32:16 Philip Balister wrote:
> Michael 'Mickey' Lauer wrote:
> > I have net seen you getting a majority for this revert :(
>
> I did not ack it outright because I was hoping we could have resolved
> the upgradability issue first, without turning this into you versus Koen
> again.

Well, apparantly i'm the only one standing up against him, so who's going to 
do it if not me?

> Both Graeme and I have expressed concern that the commits in
> question should be reviewed.

Good. Then do that. The commits fix the linking and RRECOMMENDS issue which was 
not fixed by Koen's commit. Yes, they may break the update path, I'm sorry for 
that, but sometimes you have to catch up with upstream and we have a stable 
branch for a reason.

:M:

Re: [oe-commits] Koen Kooi : Revert "ecore: catch up with the new SONAMEs; move to autosplitting"

[Otavio Salvador]

Hello Mickey,

On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Michael 'Mickey' Lauer
<mickey@vanille-media.de> wrote:
> On Saturday 25 April 2009 15:32:16 Philip Balister wrote:
>> Both Graeme and I have expressed concern that the commits in
>> question should be reviewed.
>
> Good. Then do that. The commits fix the linking and RRECOMMENDS issue which was
> not fixed by Koen's commit. Yes, they may break the update path, I'm sorry for
> that, but sometimes you have to catch up with upstream and we have a stable
> branch for a reason.

I belive that the stable branch is not a proper justification for this.

At least for me, stable is to provide a less moving target. A place where
only tested things get in and all involved transitions are done only when
already done in dev and merged all at same time to avoid a breakage.

This all is not a justification to break the whole World at dev. dev will
be the basis of next stable, and even more, it is the source of changes
for stable. So if we mess it up we'll end up with an very difficult to maintain
stable branch and an unusable dev.

-- 
Otavio Salvador                  O.S. Systems
E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br  http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854         http://projetos.ossystems.com.br

Re: [oe-commits] Koen Kooi : Revert "ecore: catch up with the new SONAMEs; move to autosplitting"

[Tom Rini]

On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 03:17:22PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Hello Mickey,
> 
> On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Michael 'Mickey' Lauer
> <mickey@vanille-media.de> wrote:
> > On Saturday 25 April 2009 15:32:16 Philip Balister wrote:
> >> Both Graeme and I have expressed concern that the commits in
> >> question should be reviewed.
> >
> > Good. Then do that. The commits fix the linking and RRECOMMENDS issue which was
> > not fixed by Koen's commit. Yes, they may break the update path, I'm sorry for
> > that, but sometimes you have to catch up with upstream and we have a stable
> > branch for a reason.
> 
> I belive that the stable branch is not a proper justification for this.
> 
> At least for me, stable is to provide a less moving target. A place where
> only tested things get in and all involved transitions are done only when
> already done in dev and merged all at same time to avoid a breakage.
> 
> This all is not a justification to break the whole World at dev. dev will
> be the basis of next stable, and even more, it is the source of changes
> for stable. So if we mess it up we'll end up with an very difficult to maintain
> stable branch and an unusable dev.

If I can sum up what it sounds like mickey is saying, he fixed some
issues that Koen didn't yet (and thus are back now that his changes are
committed).  So is .dev where we need to freak out and revert things
that do fix some issue but open another?

-- 
Tom Rini

Re: [oe-commits] Koen Kooi : Revert "ecore: catch up with the new SONAMEs; move to autosplitting"

[Otavio Salvador]

Hello Tom,

On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Tom Rini <trini@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
> If I can sum up what it sounds like mickey is saying, he fixed some
> issues that Koen didn't yet (and thus are back now that his changes are
> committed).  So is .dev where we need to freak out and revert things
> that do fix some issue but open another?

Obviously not BUT we need to consider the effects of each change.

Having problems with RRECOMMENDS and like are surely less boring to
break a whole upgrade path. I do believe that the fixes need to be
bringed back but we should really see if we can get the upgrade path
sorted out. If it shows to be rather difficult to get it done so
believe that this needs to be automated in some way (like providing a
script that removes the old packages and install the equivalent new
ones or like).

I also don't think that if a patch has broken a thing we ought to go
and fix it. The first thing to do is to revert it and keep things
going while the issue is solved, preferrable in a branch.

-- 
Otavio Salvador                  O.S. Systems
E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br  http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854         http://projetos.ossystems.com.br

Re: [oe-commits] Koen Kooi : Revert "ecore: catch up with the new SONAMEs; move to autosplitting"

[Tom Rini]

On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 03:51:21PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Hello Tom,
> 
> On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Tom Rini <trini@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
> > If I can sum up what it sounds like mickey is saying, he fixed some
> > issues that Koen didn't yet (and thus are back now that his changes are
> > committed).  So is .dev where we need to freak out and revert things
> > that do fix some issue but open another?
> 
> Obviously not BUT we need to consider the effects of each change.
> 
> Having problems with RRECOMMENDS and like are surely less boring to
> break a whole upgrade path. I do believe that the fixes need to be
> bringed back but we should really see if we can get the upgrade path
> sorted out. If it shows to be rather difficult to get it done so
> believe that this needs to be automated in some way (like providing a
> script that removes the old packages and install the equivalent new
> ones or like).
> 
> I also don't think that if a patch has broken a thing we ought to go
> and fix it. The first thing to do is to revert it and keep things
> going while the issue is solved, preferrable in a branch.

OK.  Shall we move the GNU_HASH QA error being fatal over to a branch
until Khem is happy with the changes required to make gcc package again
then?  All of the meta target are quite broken (and I still need some
ack's on my change to insane.bbclass to fix the devdbg check for sdk
packages too).

-- 
Tom Rini

Re: [oe-commits] Koen Kooi : Revert "ecore: catch up with the new SONAMEs; move to autosplitting"

[Otavio Salvador]

Hello Tom,

On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Tom Rini <trini@embeddedalley.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 03:51:21PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> I also don't think that if a patch has broken a thing we ought to go
>> and fix it. The first thing to do is to revert it and keep things
>> going while the issue is solved, preferrable in a branch.
>
> OK.  Shall we move the GNU_HASH QA error being fatal over to a branch
> until Khem is happy with the changes required to make gcc package again
> then?  All of the meta target are quite broken (and I still need some
> ack's on my change to insane.bbclass to fix the devdbg check for sdk
> packages too).

I believe that it was the correct way of doing it.

That's the beauty of branches ... we have the power of move things at
same time and do not "break" things during the development for it.

-- 
Otavio Salvador                  O.S. Systems
E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br  http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854         http://projetos.ossystems.com.br

Re: [oe-commits] Koen Kooi : Revert "ecore: catch up with the new SONAMEs; move to autosplitting"

[Michael 'Mickey' Lauer]

On Saturday 25 April 2009 20:17:22 Otavio Salvador wrote:
> This all is not a justification to break the whole World at dev. dev will
> be the basis of next stable, and even more, it is the source of changes
> for stable. So if we mess it up we'll end up with an very difficult to
> maintain stable branch and an unusable dev.

Yes, and I agree with all that, however there is the need to balance between 
breaking everything and letting everything through. If -- like it is happening 
right now -- people are paranoid about upgrade paths, then .dev moves to 
something where no actual development happens.

If you want to move forward, you will have to allow breakage now and then. 
This is the way with all projects. If you don't allow that, people will move 
elsewhere with their contributions and .dev will get stale rather than stable.

:M:

Re: [oe-commits] Koen Kooi : Revert "ecore: catch up with the new SONAMEs; move to autosplitting"

[Graeme Gregory]

Michael 'Mickey' Lauer wrote:
> On Saturday 25 April 2009 20:17:22 Otavio Salvador wrote:
>   
>> This all is not a justification to break the whole World at dev. dev will
>> be the basis of next stable, and even more, it is the source of changes
>> for stable. So if we mess it up we'll end up with an very difficult to
>> maintain stable branch and an unusable dev.
>>     
>
> Yes, and I agree with all that, however there is the need to balance between 
> breaking everything and letting everything through. If -- like it is happening 
> right now -- people are paranoid about upgrade paths, then .dev moves to 
> something where no actual development happens.
>
> If you want to move forward, you will have to allow breakage now and then. 
> This is the way with all projects. If you don't allow that, people will move 
> elsewhere with their contributions and .dev will get stale rather than stable.
>
>   
In this case was it actually necessary to change the names?

I'm afraid I try and ignore E stuff as much as possible so I am totally
unclear about its state of development.

Graeme

Re: [oe-commits] Koen Kooi : Revert "ecore: catch up with the new SONAMEs; move to autosplitting"

[Michael 'Mickey' Lauer]

On Saturday 25 April 2009 20:44:59 Graeme Gregory wrote:
> Michael 'Mickey' Lauer wrote:
> > On Saturday 25 April 2009 20:17:22 Otavio Salvador wrote:
> >> This all is not a justification to break the whole World at dev. dev
> >> will be the basis of next stable, and even more, it is the source of
> >> changes for stable. So if we mess it up we'll end up with an very
> >> difficult to maintain stable branch and an unusable dev.
> >
> > Yes, and I agree with all that, however there is the need to balance
> > between breaking everything and letting everything through. If -- like it
> > is happening right now -- people are paranoid about upgrade paths, then
> > .dev moves to something where no actual development happens.
> >
> > If you want to move forward, you will have to allow breakage now and
> > then. This is the way with all projects. If you don't allow that, people
> > will move elsewhere with their contributions and .dev will get stale
> > rather than stable.
>
> In this case was it actually necessary to change the names?

Yes. Upstream changed their SONAME in a freaky way, hence we needed to catch 
up.

> I'm afraid I try and ignore E stuff as much as possible so I am totally
> unclear about its state of development.

All was clear and calm until last week. It took Angus two days to come up with 
a solution in MS5.5 were E-Wm was starting again and everything necessary was 
installed in the image (RRECOMMENDS and friends...). His solution involved 
turning off the debian renaming for each and every package -- a solution that 
works fine but that was unacceptable for me in .dev -- hence I went forward and 
worked on a better solution that involved keeping debian naming and even 
removed the verbosity in ecore.inc.

This solution has now been reverted for the sake of the upgrade path. And just 
for the records, the technical issue wasn't the reason for me leaving the OE 
core team and resigning from all duties -- it was the way how this situation 
was handled. Again the core team pretty much stood watching in apathy and let 
the most vocal decide on his own, letting him carry his own way again.

:M:

Re: [oe-commits] Koen Kooi : Revert "ecore: catch up with the new SONAMEs; move to autosplitting"

[Otavio Salvador]

Hello Mickey,

On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Michael 'Mickey' Lauer
<mickey@vanille-media.de> wrote:
> This solution has now been reverted for the sake of the upgrade path. And just
> for the records, the technical issue wasn't the reason for me leaving the OE
> core team and resigning from all duties -- it was the way how this situation
> was handled. Again the core team pretty much stood watching in apathy and let
> the most vocal decide on his own, letting him carry his own way again.

Are you being serious? Are you leaving OE? you must be joking.

-- 
Otavio Salvador                  O.S. Systems
E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br  http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854         http://projetos.ossystems.com.br

Re: [oe-commits] Koen Kooi : Revert "ecore: catch up with the new SONAMEs; move to autosplitting"

[Michael 'Mickey' Lauer]

On Saturday 25 April 2009 22:01:36 Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Hello Mickey,
>
> On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Michael 'Mickey' Lauer
>
> <mickey@vanille-media.de> wrote:
> > This solution has now been reverted for the sake of the upgrade path. And
> > just for the records, the technical issue wasn't the reason for me
> > leaving the OE core team and resigning from all duties -- it was the way
> > how this situation was handled. Again the core team pretty much stood
> > watching in apathy and let the most vocal decide on his own, letting him
> > carry his own way again.
>
> Are you being serious? Are you leaving OE? you must be joking.

Unfortunately not. I'm seriously pissed off this time -- which is quite an 
achievement considering my general thick skin. The lack of support from the so 
called "core team" was just too much. See also

http://www.vanille-media.de/site/index.php/2009/04/25/resigning-from-oe-core-
team/

:M:

Re: [oe-commits] Koen Kooi : Revert "ecore: catch up with the new SONAMEs; move to autosplitting"

[Marcin Juszkiewicz]

Dnia sobota, 25 kwietnia 2009 o 21:44:45 Michael 'Mickey' Lauer 
napisał(a):
> This solution has now been reverted for the sake of the upgrade path.
> And just for the records, the technical issue wasn't the reason for
> me leaving the OE core team and resigning from all duties -- it was
> the way how this situation was handled. Again the core team pretty
> much stood watching in apathy and let the most vocal decide on his
> own, letting him carry his own way again.

And the whole 'fun' happened during Friday evening and Saturday when 
some members of so called 'core team' are not reading mails at all. Calm 
down Mickeyl - it is not worth your nerves.

It is 22:46 here, normally I would be sleeping (because I have no idea 
will my daughter wake me up during night or not) but today I saw 
Mickeyl's resignation mail on my cellphone and desided to check what is 
going on.

Regards, 
-- 
JID:      hrw@jabber.org
Website:  http://marcin.juszkiewicz.com.pl/
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcinjuszkiewicz

Re: [oe-commits] Koen Kooi : Revert "ecore: catch up with the new SONAMEs; move to autosplitting"

[Graeme Gregory]

Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
> Dnia sobota, 25 kwietnia 2009 o 21:44:45 Michael 'Mickey' Lauer 
> napisał(a):
>   
>> This solution has now been reverted for the sake of the upgrade path.
>> And just for the records, the technical issue wasn't the reason for
>> me leaving the OE core team and resigning from all duties -- it was
>> the way how this situation was handled. Again the core team pretty
>> much stood watching in apathy and let the most vocal decide on his
>> own, letting him carry his own way again.
>>     
>
> And the whole 'fun' happened during Friday evening and Saturday when 
> some members of so called 'core team' are not reading mails at all. Calm 
> down Mickeyl - it is not worth your nerves.
>
> It is 22:46 here, normally I would be sleeping (because I have no idea 
> will my daughter wake me up during night or not) but today I saw 
> Mickeyl's resignation mail on my cellphone and desided to check what is 
> going on.
>
>   
I would kind of agree with this sentiment. For the past 3 days I have
been basically too drunk to enter into sensible discussion of these changes.

And for the record I am also drunk tonight :-) Its taken a lot of work
to type this :-)

Can we agree to leave the earth shattering announcement to monday
mornings when I'm normally more sober?

Graeme

Re: [oe-commits] Koen Kooi : Revert "ecore: catch up with the new SONAMEs; move to autosplitting"

[Philip Balister]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2025 bytes --]

Graeme Gregory wrote:
> Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
>> Dnia sobota, 25 kwietnia 2009 o 21:44:45 Michael 'Mickey' Lauer 
>> napisał(a):
>>   
>>> This solution has now been reverted for the sake of the upgrade path.
>>> And just for the records, the technical issue wasn't the reason for
>>> me leaving the OE core team and resigning from all duties -- it was
>>> the way how this situation was handled. Again the core team pretty
>>> much stood watching in apathy and let the most vocal decide on his
>>> own, letting him carry his own way again.
>>>     
>> And the whole 'fun' happened during Friday evening and Saturday when 
>> some members of so called 'core team' are not reading mails at all. Calm 
>> down Mickeyl - it is not worth your nerves.
>>
>> It is 22:46 here, normally I would be sleeping (because I have no idea 
>> will my daughter wake me up during night or not) but today I saw 
>> Mickeyl's resignation mail on my cellphone and desided to check what is 
>> going on.
>>
>>   
> I would kind of agree with this sentiment. For the past 3 days I have
> been basically too drunk to enter into sensible discussion of these changes.
> 
> And for the record I am also drunk tonight :-) Its taken a lot of work
> to type this :-)
> 
> Can we agree to leave the earth shattering announcement to monday
> mornings when I'm normally more sober?

I'm in complete agreement with Graeme. In my case I drove 4 hours, one 
way, to watch a mummy movie. This is .dev, we need to stop acting like 
any breakage is the end of the world and it needs to be fixed in a few 
hours, especially over weekends. (I know weekend breakage is really bad 
for people like mwester who do most of their OE work on weekends)

Please guys, if you create a problem on Friday, work out how to defuse 
the issue until Monday so we can work out a long term solution. There 
are some real issues here that should be discussed so more people are in 
a position to speak up on problem commits.

Philip


[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature, Size: 3303 bytes --]

Re: [oe-commits] Koen Kooi : Revert "ecore: catch up with the new SONAMEs; move to autosplitting"

[Carsten Haitzler]

On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 22:47:40 +0200 Marcin Juszkiewicz
<marcin@juszkiewicz.com.pl> said:

> Dnia sobota, 25 kwietnia 2009 o 21:44:45 Michael 'Mickey' Lauer 
> napisał(a):
> > This solution has now been reverted for the sake of the upgrade path.
> > And just for the records, the technical issue wasn't the reason for
> > me leaving the OE core team and resigning from all duties -- it was
> > the way how this situation was handled. Again the core team pretty
> > much stood watching in apathy and let the most vocal decide on his
> > own, letting him carry his own way again.
> 
> And the whole 'fun' happened during Friday evening and Saturday when 
> some members of so called 'core team' are not reading mails at all. Calm 
> down Mickeyl - it is not worth your nerves.

true mickey - patience. one thing i have learnt in the e world is.. i may be
benevolent dictator and may get to call shots and often i get pissed off at
people doing bad things... but making drastic decisions quickly is a bad move.

nb - the soname changes in e happend after about 2 weeks of discussions - WITH
package maintainers from several desktop distributions, some of them already
patching in soname changes. we have lived with enough complaints from people
(normally with little clue) about problems we cant fathom until we find out
they have both packages ANd source installed (built from svn). soname change
should alleviate these, solve the "different distros use different sonames"
problem etc. - but it took 2 weeks of us yelling at eachother over email and
finally agreeing. the initial patches even didnt quite work properly and it
took a few days to fix them. in the end it was all working fine and upgrades
worked. packagers then of course had to catch up with the new naming, and oe is
in the middle of this.

from upstream's view - we didnt intend to force new package names. if users
100% used packaging to manage stuff it would all work. the problem is they
don't in reality and we need to coordinate between upstream and packagers to
make things sane. if oe has magic-mojo that auto-determines names of packages
from libX.so names.. then of course its going to hurt - i would simply say -
turn that logic off and manually specify package name and package file
includes. its manual, but sane and probably works better in the long run for
us :)

> It is 22:46 here, normally I would be sleeping (because I have no idea 
> will my daughter wake me up during night or not) but today I saw 
> Mickeyl's resignation mail on my cellphone and desided to check what is 
> going on.
> 
> Regards, 
> -- 
> JID:      hrw@jabber.org
> Website:  http://marcin.juszkiewicz.com.pl/
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcinjuszkiewicz
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel


-- 
------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" --------------
The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler)    raster@rasterman.com

Re: [oe-commits] Koen Kooi : Revert "ecore: catch up with the new SONAMEs; move to autosplitting"

[Marcin Juszkiewicz]

Dnia sobota, 25 kwietnia 2009 o 21:44:45 Michael 'Mickey' Lauer 
napisał(a):

> And just for the records, the technical issue wasn't the reason for me
> leaving the OE core team and resigning from all duties -- it was the
> way how this situation was handled. 

I agree - those reverts should not happen. At least not during weekend 
when most of developers do other things then reading emails (I cleaned 
house, met some people, visited some exhibitions and shows etc).

> Again the core team pretty much stood watching in apathy and let the
> most vocal decide on his own, letting him carry his own way again.

I think that we need to make a vote for 'senior developers' group which 
will replace 'core team' group. They will have deciding voice when 
problems will appear. And let them be chosen by OE developers not by 
'core team' members.

Regards, 
-- 
JID:      hrw@jabber.org
Website:  http://marcin.juszkiewicz.com.pl/
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcinjuszkiewicz

Re: [oe-commits] Koen Kooi : Revert "ecore: catch up with the new SONAMEs; move to autosplitting"

[Phil Blundell]

On Sat, 2009-04-25 at 21:44 +0200, Michael 'Mickey' Lauer wrote:
> Again the core team pretty much stood watching in apathy and let 
> the most vocal decide on his own, letting him carry his own way again.

I haven't really been following the technical ins and outs of this
thread so I don't have any comment on the rights or wrongs of this
particular issue.  But, from the outside at least, it does seem as
though the core team has consistently failed to show very much in the
way of leadership or direction.  I am exceptionally disappointed to see
that this has apparently reached the point where one of our most
experienced and respected developers is walking away in disgust.

Also, I don't think that the external impression one gains of the core
team is helped by the fact that its operations are somewhat opaque to
non-members: there doesn't seem to be any public record of the decisions
that the core team have made (if indeed it has made any) or the
rationale for them.

If we are to have a core team as the governing body for OE then I would
like to see it taking a more active role in overseeing the project (in
particular, to guide policies for technical issues and not merely focus
on administrivia such as the formatting of commit messages or
Signed-off-by lines), and for this to be done in a more transparent way.
If the current members of the core team are, for whatever reason, not
willing or able to discharge those duties then (much as I hesitate to
call for this) perhaps it's time to hold elections and appoint new
members in their place.

p.

Re: [oe-commits] Koen Kooi : Revert "ecore: catch up with the new SONAMEs; move to autosplitting"

[Stefan Schmidt]

Hello.

On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 15:41, Phil Blundell wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-04-25 at 21:44 +0200, Michael 'Mickey' Lauer wrote:
> > Again the core team pretty much stood watching in apathy and let 
> > the most vocal decide on his own, letting him carry his own way again.
> 
> Also, I don't think that the external impression one gains of the core
> team is helped by the fact that its operations are somewhat opaque to
> non-members: there doesn't seem to be any public record of the decisions
> that the core team have made (if indeed it has made any) or the
> rationale for them.

I have to agree here. I even had to search the wiki for records who actually is
part of this team.

I seems that such discussions take place on the oe-private list. That is fine as
long as the issue needs to be addressed in a smaller circle until it came to a
conclusion. Still I miss a mail or similar once such a conclusion was done.

A trivial item was the new logo. An offer was posted to this very list that a
company was in favour of paying a designer for creating a logo. Great thing. The
next time I came in contact with this was as the new logo was used on the
website, wiki, etc. I was wondering what happened in between.

For such a trivial issue it was not even a needed to write a mail about it, but
it would have been nice to have a short report on what is/was going on. If a
coreteam of a project does not communicate what it is doing or plans to do it
leaves an aftertaste of missing transparency.

regards
Stefan Schmidt

Re: [oe-commits] Koen Kooi : Revert "ecore: catch up with the new SONAMEs; move to autosplitting"

[Marcin Juszkiewicz]

Dnia wtorek, 28 kwietnia 2009 o 20:13:02 Stefan Schmidt napisał(a):
> A trivial item was the new logo. An offer was posted to this very
> list that a company was in favour of paying a designer for creating a
> logo. Great thing. The next time I came in contact with this was as
> the new logo was used on the website, wiki, etc. I was wondering what
> happened in between.

First we got offer, then we got few versions of logo. We chosen two and 
one colour scheme. Then we got another set of propositions and selected 
current logo. Thats in short.

Regards, 
-- 
JID:      hrw@jabber.org
Website:  http://marcin.juszkiewicz.com.pl/
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcinjuszkiewicz

Re: [oe-commits] Koen Kooi : Revert "ecore: catch up with the new SONAMEs; move to autosplitting"

[Cliff Brake]

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Phil Blundell <philb@gnu.org> wrote:

> If we are to have a core team as the governing body for OE then I would
> like to see it taking a more active role in overseeing the project (in
> particular, to guide policies for technical issues and not merely focus
> on administrivia such as the formatting of commit messages or
> Signed-off-by lines), and for this to be done in a more transparent way.
> If the current members of the core team are, for whatever reason, not
> willing or able to discharge those duties then (much as I hesitate to
> call for this) perhaps it's time to hold elections and appoint new
> members in their place.

One possible path is to:

1) figure out how to get members added to the eV that is already in place.
2) hold elections for a board

In the absence of an active benevolent dictator, I see regular
elections as the only path forward.

We also need to stop waiting on the next OSS event to take the next
step.  We can host conf calls, etc -- whatever it takes.  Documents
can be scanned/emailed -- we don't have to be in person to sign.  KDE
seems to have a process for adding eV members.

Cliff

-- 
=======================
Cliff Brake
http://bec-systems.com

Re: [oe-commits] Koen Kooi : Revert "ecore: catch up with the new SONAMEs; move to autosplitting"

[Phil Blundell]

On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 14:23 -0400, Cliff Brake wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Phil Blundell <philb@gnu.org> wrote:
> 
> > If we are to have a core team as the governing body for OE then I would
> > like to see it taking a more active role in overseeing the project (in
> > particular, to guide policies for technical issues and not merely focus
> > on administrivia such as the formatting of commit messages or
> > Signed-off-by lines), and for this to be done in a more transparent way.
> > If the current members of the core team are, for whatever reason, not
> > willing or able to discharge those duties then (much as I hesitate to
> > call for this) perhaps it's time to hold elections and appoint new
> > members in their place.
> 
> One possible path is to:
> 
> 1) figure out how to get members added to the eV that is already in place.
> 2) hold elections for a board

Agreed, that sounds like a good thing.  But, I'm not sure that the eV
board would necessarily be the same thing as the core team or "steering
committee" that would make the day-to-day decisions.  

My understanding of German law is pretty sketchy but I'm guessing that
the main function of the eV board is to be legally responsible for the
operation of the organisation and, as such, it probably requires a
rather different set of skills than one would need to provide technical
or even administrative oversight for the operation of the OE development
project itself.  In particular, given that the eV is (obviously)
constituted in Germany and hence that the authoritative copies of all
the legal documents are presumably those drafted in German, I suspect
that it would probably be a dim idea for anybody with a less than fluent
grasp of that language to serve on the board.  

> We also need to stop waiting on the next OSS event to take the next
> step.  We can host conf calls, etc -- whatever it takes.  Documents
> can be scanned/emailed -- we don't have to be in person to sign.  KDE
> seems to have a process for adding eV members.

Yes, I think this is absolutely right.  This is the year 2009 and we
have telephones, faxes, FedEx, email, VoIP, IRC and no doubt many other
things at our disposal.  It does seem silly for progress to be dependent
on everybody being able to meet face-to-face.

p.

Re: [oe-commits] Koen Kooi : Revert "ecore: catch up with the new SONAMEs; move to autosplitting"

[Philip Balister]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 565 bytes --]

Phil Blundell wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 14:23 -0400, Cliff Brake wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Phil Blundell <philb@gnu.org> wrote:

I think people are going two different directions. Mickey has resigned 
from the eV board and said we need to replace him on the eV board. Also, 
we need to make arrangements for hosting the OE services. Obviously, 
we'd like the hosting responsibility moved to the group, and not be 
dependent on individual generosity. This is as good a time as ever to 
resolve the few remaining eV issues.

Philip

[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature, Size: 3303 bytes --]

Re: [oe-commits] Koen Kooi : Revert "ecore: catch up with the new SONAMEs; move to autosplitting"

[Philip Balister]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2119 bytes --]

Phil Blundell wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 14:23 -0400, Cliff Brake wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Phil Blundell <philb@gnu.org> wrote:
>>
>>> If we are to have a core team as the governing body for OE then I would
>>> like to see it taking a more active role in overseeing the project (in
>>> particular, to guide policies for technical issues and not merely focus
>>> on administrivia such as the formatting of commit messages or
>>> Signed-off-by lines), and for this to be done in a more transparent way.
>>> If the current members of the core team are, for whatever reason, not
>>> willing or able to discharge those duties then (much as I hesitate to
>>> call for this) perhaps it's time to hold elections and appoint new
>>> members in their place.
>> One possible path is to:
>>
>> 1) figure out how to get members added to the eV that is already in place.
>> 2) hold elections for a board
> 
> Agreed, that sounds like a good thing.  But, I'm not sure that the eV
> board would necessarily be the same thing as the core team or "steering
> committee" that would make the day-to-day decisions.  
> 
> My understanding of German law is pretty sketchy but I'm guessing that
> the main function of the eV board is to be legally responsible for the
> operation of the organisation and, as such, it probably requires a
> rather different set of skills than one would need to provide technical
> or even administrative oversight for the operation of the OE development
> project itself.  In particular, given that the eV is (obviously)
> constituted in Germany and hence that the authoritative copies of all
> the legal documents are presumably those drafted in German, I suspect
> that it would probably be a dim idea for anybody with a less than fluent
> grasp of that language to serve on the board.  

The kde ev documents are here: http://ev.kde.org/. I don't think there 
is any issue having non-German's on the board. In fact I would be 
unhappy if there was such a restriction in place.

The OE articles of association are based on the kde ones.

Philip

[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature, Size: 3303 bytes --]

Re: [oe-commits] Koen Kooi : Revert "ecore: catch up with the new SONAMEs; move to autosplitting"

[Phil Blundell]

On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 17:26 -0400, Philip Balister wrote:
> Phil Blundell wrote:
> > In particular, given that the eV is (obviously)
> > constituted in Germany and hence that the authoritative copies of all
> > the legal documents are presumably those drafted in German, I suspect
> > that it would probably be a dim idea for anybody with a less than fluent
> > grasp of that language to serve on the board.  
> 
> The kde ev documents are here: http://ev.kde.org/. I don't think there 
> is any issue having non-German's on the board. In fact I would be 
> unhappy if there was such a restriction in place.

Just to clarify what I wrote before, I certainly didn't mean that I
thought non-Germans were prohibited from serving on the board; indeed, I
would be very surprised if there was any specific restriction of that
kind.

However, personally, I would be very reluctant to serve as a board
member for any organisation whose official documentation was drafted in
a language of which I had a less than perfect command, and/or which was
operating in a jurisdiction whose laws I knew very little about.  The
risk of screwing something up through ignorance or misunderstanding
would just be too great.  And, for that matter, if I were casting a vote
for the board members of such an organisation, I'd want to be confident
that the people I was voting for had the knowledge and ability to
discharge their duties appropriately.

Since OE eV is a German organisation, the language of its official
documents and any related legal processes is almost inescapably going to
be German.  Indeed, for example, note that
http://ev.kde.org/corporate/statutes.php (the "Articles of association"
link from the page you mentioned above) says:

 The original and legally binding version is the German version, the
 "Satzung" (PDF). The following translation is for information only.

p.