[arch-dev-public] TU autonomy
One other thing to remember in this whole repo debate is that, while the TUs derive some authority from the dev structure (primarily by means of our hosting the AUR), they are intended as a generally autonomous group. Deciding for them what should and shouldn't go in community will have repercussions. We should remember well our history lessons about how difficult it is to set up a stable and productive TU ecosystem before we rock that boat. We should not consider it obviously in our jurisdiction to use [community] as part of our own official repository plan. - P
On 10/17/07, Paul Mattal <paul@mattal.com> wrote:
One other thing to remember in this whole repo debate is that, while the TUs derive some authority from the dev structure (primarily by means of our hosting the AUR), they are intended as a generally autonomous group.
Deciding for them what should and shouldn't go in community will have repercussions. We should remember well our history lessons about how difficult it is to set up a stable and productive TU ecosystem before we rock that boat.
We should not consider it obviously in our jurisdiction to use [community] as part of our own official repository plan.
Well that works in theory, but to be realistic about it, it's still hosted on gerolde and still uses our resources. Were it completely autonomous, it would be on a separate server like the kdemod project. So, we do have SOME weight in how this works. Even for the simple fact that "it's using our bandwidth".
Aaron Griffin wrote:
On 10/17/07, Paul Mattal <paul@mattal.com> wrote:
One other thing to remember in this whole repo debate is that, while the TUs derive some authority from the dev structure (primarily by means of our hosting the AUR), they are intended as a generally autonomous group.
Deciding for them what should and shouldn't go in community will have repercussions. We should remember well our history lessons about how difficult it is to set up a stable and productive TU ecosystem before we rock that boat.
We should not consider it obviously in our jurisdiction to use [community] as part of our own official repository plan.
Well that works in theory, but to be realistic about it, it's still hosted on gerolde and still uses our resources. Were it completely autonomous, it would be on a separate server like the kdemod project.
So, we do have SOME weight in how this works. Even for the simple fact that "it's using our bandwidth".
But it doesn't have to be. Much like an 18-year old "child", his mandate can be "while you're under my roof", but not "you have to do x." We should not assume the TUs will decide to stay under our roof. Indeed, many other international arch projects are not under our roof, and they get along just fine. - P
* On Wednesday, October 17 2007, Paul Mattal wrote:
We should not assume the TUs will decide to stay under our roof. Indeed, many other international arch projects are not under our roof, and they get along just fine.
- P
I was just thinking about this as well Paul. Most TU's take the position that they are autonomous from archlinux devs. Which I think they _should_ be. That's a really cool part of the Trusted User title. You are acting on behalf of the community, not on behalf of archlinux. I think any restrictions on what does and doesn't go in [community] would not be a good idea. If we want to have a different purpose for a repo, let's make a new one... Let's not give something to the community and then just renig on it. // Jeff -- .: [ + carpe diem totus tuus + ] :.
participants (3)
-
Aaron Griffin
-
Jeff 'codemac' Mickey
-
Paul Mattal