> What kind of business model would that be?
If the model of exherbo development doesn’t work maybe change to some other model, paid programmers or sth like that?

> Apart from that, the
> problem is not really with getting contributions but with reviewing
> them.
It is still some work, which those people don’t want to do.

> Nor am I asking people to maintain packages they don’t care about.
> All I want them to do is picking up what we get. That’s really not
> much to ask for, I think
Not much for you, but as you see it’s to much hassle for them.

> I’m not threatening either. I’m just saying that I’m tired of working on > all those patches. If I don’t, though, most of them will just rot and
> that sucks. That’s not my idea of Exherbo and if that’s the way it
> goes, I’ll simply find something new to work on. Which would suck,
> too, because I really like Exherbo in general.
I also like the idea of Exherbo, that people enjoy what they do, and if you want something, do it yourself. But as you see, even reviewing patches someone has to do.

But instead of solving the problem, you persuade people to do more unwanted work and that would create another Gentoo-like pathology.

Maybe solution of this patches is to move original idea of Exherbo level up. I mean the idea that core devs make core packages.

1. Maybe amount of core packages should be decreased?

2. Or use something like github for forking, watching etc. which could make some operations easier to perform.

3. Or even don’t create fixed list of core packages, core devs but base it on some sort of reputation algorithm. If some author or his package gets more reputation, it is picked up by paludis.

For example someone is abandoning his package. Then you just fork it, and paludis then could offer this new forked version during upgrade. If this fork gets enough reputation (installs, upgrades etc.) it becomes default.

Enough said. Short: Just stick with original idea of Exherbo (as I understand it correctly).

Roman Frołow