[gentoo-dev] FORK: The Time Is Now

[gentoo-dev] FORK: The Time Is Now

[Zach Welch]

Fellow Gentooers,

I am proud to announce that The Zynot Foundation was registered today
as a 501.c.3 member controlled, non-profit organization in the state of
Oregon.  This new entity is being established to hold a fork of the
Gentoo Linux distribution, targeting embedded and enterprise users and
developers.  We will be establishing a new development culture suitable
for creating a reliable, validated, and production-ready distribution -
initially using the Gentoo technology we all have come to know and love.

While I am currently leading this effort, I have already attracted a
number of others willing to help me guide this project through its
initial growing pains.  In the next couple of months, I expect this
project to evolve as truly community run organization, and we will be
drafting the foundation's bylaws out in the open, accepting input from
the community thoughout the entire process.

I humbly submit that every present or future Gentoo user, developer,
client, or investor should read my paper at the following URL.  In great
detail, it describes the events that drove me to this current state of
affairs, the reasoning behind the fork (along with a section covering
the most current events), along with a brief glimpse at the choices this
fork will be offering the community that grows around it:

http://www.zynot.org/info/fork.html

and the following links has some initial questions answered about the
future and other ideas:

http://www.zynot.org/info/faq.html

We are working to establish parallel infrastructure at Oregon State
University; however, my resources have been heavily invested in the
Gentoo project, both material and finacially, and many of the details of
those investments are documented in the above paper.  My attornys have
sent a letter to Mr. Robbins requesting these investments be returned.

For those that would speculate about the timing of this announcement, my
paper presents facts that suggest the recent re-organization post by
Daniel Robbins was a pre-emptive and unsuccessful attempt to
short-circuit this fork.  Consider that fact along with the remaining
evidence presented in my paper as you read the inevitable damage and
spin control that follows this post.

I would like to invite Daniel Robbins to meet me at LinuxWorld
Expo, 2003, for a head-to-head public debate about the issues
surrounding this fork.  The Zynot Foundation has registered booth #5
in the .org pavillion, and we are looking forward to talking with
everyone then and there.  In the meantime, come join us on IRC in #zynot
or #zynot-dev on irc.freenode.net where there is sure to be lively
discussion.

Finally, I would like to thank all of the users and developers that have
made Gentoo a wonderful technology, and I look forward to being able to
give something substantial back to the community with this new
distribution.  Thank you for the memories.

Sincerely,

Zachary T Welch
Managing Member
Superlucidity Services
zwelch@superlucidity.net


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] FORK: The Time Is Now

[Matt Thrailkill]

Why do all these spinoff companies keep getting made to work on what is
supposed to be a meta-distribution?  Why can't it all be kept unified
under one umbrella?

Why did you have to fork and found a company to target embedded and
enterprise users and developers?

On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 18:08:55 -0700
Zach Welch <zwelch@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Fellow Gentooers,
> 
> I am proud to announce that The Zynot Foundation was registered today
> as a 501.c.3 member controlled, non-profit organization in the state
> of Oregon.  This new entity is being established to hold a fork of the
> Gentoo Linux distribution, targeting embedded and enterprise users and
> developers.  We will be establishing a new development culture
> suitable for creating a reliable, validated, and production-ready
> distribution - initially using the Gentoo technology we all have come
> to know and love.
> 
> While I am currently leading this effort, I have already attracted a
> number of others willing to help me guide this project through its
> initial growing pains.  In the next couple of months, I expect this
> project to evolve as truly community run organization, and we will be
> drafting the foundation's bylaws out in the open, accepting input from
> the community thoughout the entire process.
> 
> I humbly submit that every present or future Gentoo user, developer,
> client, or investor should read my paper at the following URL.  In
> great detail, it describes the events that drove me to this current
> state of affairs, the reasoning behind the fork (along with a section
> covering the most current events), along with a brief glimpse at the
> choices this fork will be offering the community that grows around it:
> 
> http://www.zynot.org/info/fork.html
> 
> and the following links has some initial questions answered about the
> future and other ideas:
> 
> http://www.zynot.org/info/faq.html
> 
> We are working to establish parallel infrastructure at Oregon State
> University; however, my resources have been heavily invested in the
> Gentoo project, both material and finacially, and many of the details
> of those investments are documented in the above paper.  My attornys
> have sent a letter to Mr. Robbins requesting these investments be
> returned.
> 
> For those that would speculate about the timing of this announcement,
> my paper presents facts that suggest the recent re-organization post
> by Daniel Robbins was a pre-emptive and unsuccessful attempt to
> short-circuit this fork.  Consider that fact along with the remaining
> evidence presented in my paper as you read the inevitable damage and
> spin control that follows this post.
> 
> I would like to invite Daniel Robbins to meet me at LinuxWorld
> Expo, 2003, for a head-to-head public debate about the issues
> surrounding this fork.  The Zynot Foundation has registered booth #5
> in the .org pavillion, and we are looking forward to talking with
> everyone then and there.  In the meantime, come join us on IRC in
> #zynot
> or #zynot-dev on irc.freenode.net where there is sure to be lively
> discussion.
> 
> Finally, I would like to thank all of the users and developers that
> have made Gentoo a wonderful technology, and I look forward to being
> able to give something substantial back to the community with this new
> distribution.  Thank you for the memories.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Zachary T Welch
> Managing Member
> Superlucidity Services
> zwelch@superlucidity.net
> 
> 
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
> 
> 

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] FORK: The Time Is Now

[Mike Frysinger]

read the URL's he pasted before asking this
-mike

On Wednesday 25 June 2003 21:15, Matt Thrailkill wrote:
> Why do all these spinoff companies keep getting made to work on what is
> supposed to be a meta-distribution?  Why can't it all be kept unified
> under one umbrella?
>
> Why did you have to fork and found a company to target embedded and
> enterprise users and developers?
>
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 18:08:55 -0700
>
> Zach Welch <zwelch@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Fellow Gentooers,
> >
> > I am proud to announce that The Zynot Foundation was registered today
> > as a 501.c.3 member controlled, non-profit organization in the state
> > of Oregon.  This new entity is being established to hold a fork of the
> > Gentoo Linux distribution, targeting embedded and enterprise users and
> > developers.  We will be establishing a new development culture
> > suitable for creating a reliable, validated, and production-ready
> > distribution - initially using the Gentoo technology we all have come
> > to know and love.
> >
> > While I am currently leading this effort, I have already attracted a
> > number of others willing to help me guide this project through its
> > initial growing pains.  In the next couple of months, I expect this
> > project to evolve as truly community run organization, and we will be
> > drafting the foundation's bylaws out in the open, accepting input from
> > the community thoughout the entire process.
> >
> > I humbly submit that every present or future Gentoo user, developer,
> > client, or investor should read my paper at the following URL.  In
> > great detail, it describes the events that drove me to this current
> > state of affairs, the reasoning behind the fork (along with a section
> > covering the most current events), along with a brief glimpse at the
> > choices this fork will be offering the community that grows around it:
> >
> > http://www.zynot.org/info/fork.html
> >
> > and the following links has some initial questions answered about the
> > future and other ideas:
> >
> > http://www.zynot.org/info/faq.html
> >
> > We are working to establish parallel infrastructure at Oregon State
> > University; however, my resources have been heavily invested in the
> > Gentoo project, both material and finacially, and many of the details
> > of those investments are documented in the above paper.  My attornys
> > have sent a letter to Mr. Robbins requesting these investments be
> > returned.
> >
> > For those that would speculate about the timing of this announcement,
> > my paper presents facts that suggest the recent re-organization post
> > by Daniel Robbins was a pre-emptive and unsuccessful attempt to
> > short-circuit this fork.  Consider that fact along with the remaining
> > evidence presented in my paper as you read the inevitable damage and
> > spin control that follows this post.
> >
> > I would like to invite Daniel Robbins to meet me at LinuxWorld
> > Expo, 2003, for a head-to-head public debate about the issues
> > surrounding this fork.  The Zynot Foundation has registered booth #5
> > in the .org pavillion, and we are looking forward to talking with
> > everyone then and there.  In the meantime, come join us on IRC in
> > #zynot
> > or #zynot-dev on irc.freenode.net where there is sure to be lively
> > discussion.
> >
> > Finally, I would like to thank all of the users and developers that
> > have made Gentoo a wonderful technology, and I look forward to being
> > able to give something substantial back to the community with this new
> > distribution.  Thank you for the memories.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Zachary T Welch
> > Managing Member
> > Superlucidity Services
> > zwelch@superlucidity.net
> >
> >
> > --
> > gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
>
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] FORK: The Time Is Now

[Daniel Robbins]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2188 bytes --]

On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 06:08:55PM -0700, Zach Welch wrote:
> Fellow Gentooers,
> 
> I am proud to announce that The Zynot Foundation was registered today
> as a 501.c.3 member controlled, non-profit organization in the state of
> Oregon.  This new entity is being established to hold a fork of the
> Gentoo Linux distribution.

Zach, I wish you and your team the best. 

I will not make any attempt to correct your account of events, even though
they contain numerous gross exagerations, innaccuracies, massive "spin," and
false insinuations that I am ripping people off, just in my initial scan of
what you wrote. Littered with lies, and slanderous, certainly. 

Your write-up is like a "based on real events" TV movie, where there are
*just* enough facts to make the story believable to those who don't know any
better. 

I will not "retaliate" by writing up a startling expose of any supposed
wrongdoings on your part. Because, frankly, life is too short for this kind
of stuff. I don't want to waste it by launching personal attacks on people.

I could easily "win" the argument by explaining in detail what really
happened, sharing the real facts, details, situations, conversations and
intentions, proving lies to be fabrications, assertions to be stories, and
your supposed critical analysis to be fueled solely by irrational anger.
But somehow I think that I'd end up "losing" by adopting your tactics. 

As always, if any developer has questions about *anything* related to
Gentoo, including how money is spent, please feel free to ask me. Those
who have asked know that I answer all questions fully, and do my best to
help developers out with any needs they may have when I am aware of them.

Anyone who suspects that I am rich can come visit my home in Albuquerque and
form their own opinions. You can even take pictures and post them on the
Internet, as long as you take pictures of my daughter (soon to be
daughter*s*) too :)

As for the debate, what's to debate? I congratulate you on your new open
source project and wish you the best. 

Best Regards,

-- 
Daniel Robbins
Chief Architect, Gentoo Linux
http://www.gentoo.org

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] FORK: The Time Is Now

[Joseph Hardin]

Heh, one of these days I'm gonna come up to albuqrque and buy you a 
pizza or something as thanks. I'm up there decently often(I live in 
alamogordo).

On Wednesday, Jun 25, 2003, at 22:02 America/Denver, Daniel Robbins 
wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 06:08:55PM -0700, Zach Welch wrote:
>> Fellow Gentooers,
>>
>> I am proud to announce that The Zynot Foundation was registered today
>> as a 501.c.3 member controlled, non-profit organization in the state 
>> of
>> Oregon.  This new entity is being established to hold a fork of the
>> Gentoo Linux distribution.
>
> Zach, I wish you and your team the best.
>
> I will not make any attempt to correct your account of events, even 
> though
> they contain numerous gross exagerations, innaccuracies, massive 
> "spin," and
> false insinuations that I am ripping people off, just in my initial 
> scan of
> what you wrote. Littered with lies, and slanderous, certainly.
>
> Your write-up is like a "based on real events" TV movie, where there 
> are
> *just* enough facts to make the story believable to those who don't 
> know any
> better.
>
> I will not "retaliate" by writing up a startling expose of any supposed
> wrongdoings on your part. Because, frankly, life is too short for this 
> kind
> of stuff. I don't want to waste it by launching personal attacks on 
> people.
>
> I could easily "win" the argument by explaining in detail what really
> happened, sharing the real facts, details, situations, conversations 
> and
> intentions, proving lies to be fabrications, assertions to be stories, 
> and
> your supposed critical analysis to be fueled solely by irrational 
> anger.
> But somehow I think that I'd end up "losing" by adopting your tactics.
>
> As always, if any developer has questions about *anything* related to
> Gentoo, including how money is spent, please feel free to ask me. Those
> who have asked know that I answer all questions fully, and do my best 
> to
> help developers out with any needs they may have when I am aware of 
> them.
>
> Anyone who suspects that I am rich can come visit my home in 
> Albuquerque and
> form their own opinions. You can even take pictures and post them on 
> the
> Internet, as long as you take pictures of my daughter (soon to be
> daughter*s*) too :)
>
> As for the debate, what's to debate? I congratulate you on your new 
> open
> source project and wish you the best.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> -- 
> Daniel Robbins
> Chief Architect, Gentoo Linux
> http://www.gentoo.org
> <mime-attachment>


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] FORK: The Time Is Now

[Peter Johanson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2113 bytes --]

On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 10:02:27PM -0600, Daniel Robbins wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 06:08:55PM -0700, Zach Welch wrote:
> 
> I will not make any attempt to correct your account of events, even though
> they contain numerous gross exagerations, innaccuracies, massive "spin," and
> false insinuations that I am ripping people off, just in my initial scan of
> what you wrote. Littered with lies, and slanderous, certainly. 
> 
> Your write-up is like a "based on real events" TV movie, where there are
> *just* enough facts to make the story believable to those who don't know any
> better. 
> 
> I will not "retaliate" by writing up a startling expose of any supposed
> wrongdoings on your part. Because, frankly, life is too short for this kind
> of stuff. I don't want to waste it by launching personal attacks on people.
> 
> I could easily "win" the argument by explaining in detail what really
> happened, sharing the real facts, details, situations, conversations and
> intentions, proving lies to be fabrications, assertions to be stories, and
> your supposed critical analysis to be fueled solely by irrational anger.
> But somehow I think that I'd end up "losing" by adopting your tactics. 
> 

I completely understand your desire not to get in a "slander
war," and i respect that. At the same time, Zach has raised a lot of
issues that i feel *need* to be addressed. If we as developers are to be
able to make rational sense of these events, and not just make
assumptions or biases, we need to know everyone's side of them.
Zach's account provides us with his view of what happened, and gives us
concrete events as he sees them. All i get from your response is a
blatant dismissal of his opinions and account, with no justification.

part of open source is about openness, and transparency. I love gentoo,
and have no personal gripes with you, but i (and i think at least a few
other devs) would feel a lot better if we could hear your side of the
story and make a decision for ourselves based on that.


-pete


-- 
Peter Johanson
<latexer@gentoo.org>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] FORK: The Time Is Now

[Seemant Kulleen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1452 bytes --]

OK, here's what I am thinking about.  While you respect that Daniel does not want to get into a mud slinging contest, you're asking him to.  As far as an account of what happened, it really makes no difference -- it's a point of one's word against another's word.

The crux however, is that you mentioned issues that were raised.  I rather believe those issues are what should be addressed, rather than "he said this, but this is what happened" because the latter is futile, and this isn't Jerry Springer.

So, let's get those issues which need addressing out into the open instead, shall we.  

This is going to -dev, but it's targetted mainly at the gentoo developers (no offense to anyone else, and your input is very much welcomed as well).  This is my invitation.  You can email the list or email me privately (so that there is confidentiality, if you're worried about that) and tell me your issues.  While you're at it, tell me the 3 biggest things you'd like to see changed, and how.

You say it's about transparency, I say, if you have a gripe, voice it so it can be seen.  If it is not seen, it can not be addressed.  As a member of the gentoo leadership, this is my invitation to you.

Thanks,


-- 
Seemant Kulleen
Developer and Project Co-ordinator,
Gentoo Linux					http://www.gentoo.org/~seemant

Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x3458780E
Key fingerprint = 23A9 7CB5 9BBB 4F8D 549B 6593 EDA2 65D8 3458 780E

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] FORK: The Time Is Now

[Brad Laue]

Peter Johanson wrote:
> concrete events as he sees them. All i get from your response is a
> blatant dismissal of his opinions and account, with no justification.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but there is no need to debate an
issue of unfulfilled expectations; the fact that this fork was motivated
by dissappointment about not having clout is evident once you see the
words 'sweat equity investment'.

This impression is exacerbated by the war cry 'the time is now', as
though reference is being made to a sinking ship. It's all in bad taste,
and is apparent from the get-go.

I hope that Zach uses this opportunity to take existing Gentoo
technologies in innovative directions, but I'd have to say this could
have been executed in a more professional manner.

Brad


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] FORK: The Time Is Now

[FRLinux]

I strongly disagree, this should be left in the open so everybody can react 
and give his opinion on the matter. Going to a closed-list debate is not 
exactly what i call transparent ...

As someone mentionned before, people want answers about their work and the way 
Gentoo is going, the reasons for which he did the fork are his, but some of 
them are ours, as i know i'm not the only one wondering about those issues. 
Whilst i do agree with your point on the unnecessay mudfight, i think this 
thread should continue right here.

Steph

On Thursday 26 June 2003 13:28, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> This is going to -dev, but it's targetted mainly at the gentoo developers
> (no offense to anyone else, and your input is very much welcomed as well). 


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] FORK: The Time Is Now

[Michael Cummings]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1044 bytes --]

Steph,

	No offense intended, but I believe you have misinterpreted
Seemant's invitation. Seemant is asking folks, devs in particular since
they are on the "front line" in many respects, what they consider to be
issues/concerns with Gentoo. The offer to email privately is just in
case you don't want to share your opinions with the group at large, but
still want your voice heard. My understanding from talking with seemant
on irc is that this is to see what others think are issues, either with
the distribution, the tools, etc., so that we *can* address concesus
voted issues.

	Think of it if you will as all of us sitting in a group meeting
going around and listing our favorite colour, movie, and
issues/concerns/ideas for gentoo ;).

-mike, the quiet perl guy

On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 01:43:14PM +0100, FRLinux wrote:
> I strongly disagree, this should be left in the open so everybody can react 
> and give his opinion on the matter. Going to a closed-list debate is not 
> exactly what i call transparent ...
> 

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] FORK: The Time Is Now

[Brad Laue]

Matt Thrailkill wrote:
> Why do all these spinoff companies keep getting made to work on what is
> supposed to be a meta-distribution?  Why can't it all be kept unified
> under one umbrella?
> 
> Why did you have to fork and found a company to target embedded and
> enterprise users and developers?

You hit the nail right on the head. The ability to base a product or 
project on Gentoo technologies is in my opinion one of the greatest 
strengths of Gentoo being a metadistribution. I could form umpteen 
business ventures and create products based upon Gentoo technologies 
because *that is what the infrastructure is precisely meant for*.

Look at gentoogames, and how well it demonstrates that Gentoo can do 
more than just be a Linux distribution.

A fork is just a way to put your name on it. I've been around BSD 
developers too long not to know it's about clashing ego.

Brad

-- 
// -- http://www.BRAD-X.com/ -- //


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] FORK: The Time Is Now

[Philippe Lafoucrière]

On Thu, 2003-06-26 at 14:43, FRLinux wrote:
> I strongly disagree, this should be left in the open so everybody can react 
> and give his opinion on the matter. Going to a closed-list debate is not 
> exactly what i call transparent ...


I agree with FRLinux. gentoo is so suffering from these "secret
conversations".

please see all french reactions about this fork :

http://linuxfr.org/2003/06/26/13046.html

Everybody love gentoo there, but complain about the lack of visibility
in the project (I know, gentoo-core is working on it). But I really have
the impression that there's on the one hand the gentoo-core members, and
on the other hand...non-gentoo-core members aka users, devs, docs
managers, etc.



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] FORK: The Time Is Now

[Brad Laue]

Philippe Lafoucrière wrote:

> I agree with FRLinux. gentoo is so suffering from these "secret
> conversations".

No it isn't, you're taking one person's word for it. Full disclosure 
exists as much as there can be. Nothing is hidden, and no one can 
possibly take in every tactical discussion about Gentoo without creating 
some kind of ungodly logging system.

Yes, -core is reserved for developers only, and perhaps it should be 
openned up for public viewing, but you're really not missing anything. 
It's discussion of matters pertaining to Gentoo development, just as you 
could observe by idling in #Gentoo-dev on FreeNode.

There is no secret handshake or conspiracy ot hide anything important.

Brad

-- 
// -- http://www.BRAD-X.com/ -- //


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] FORK: The Time Is Now

[foser]

On Thu, 2003-06-26 at 15:43, Philippe Lafoucrière wrote:
> I agree with FRLinux. gentoo is so suffering from these "secret
> conversations".

Gentoo is suffering from the 'secret conversations' urban myth. 

> please see all french reactions about this fork :

Well my french isn't what it used to be.

> Everybody love gentoo there, but complain about the lack of visibility
> in the project (I know, gentoo-core is working on it). But I really have
> the impression that there's on the one hand the gentoo-core members, and
> on the other hand...non-gentoo-core members aka users, devs, docs
> managers, etc.

The lack of visibility is the lack of organization and the pretty much
total freedom developers had, there was no real need to communicate on
certain points because it worked as it was. While this had its merits
and made Gentoo in what it is today i see more and more that this isn't
sufficient anymore (i come from a time when it was possible). This is
what the proposed top-level structure intends to tackle.

There is not much to say. I can tell you there's nothing special in area
51, but if you want to believe it won't change your mind.

- foser

PS. bad example, of course they're hiding UFOs and aliens and whatnot in
area 51.
PS II. http://www.se.gnome.org/conspiracy/
PS III. This mail goes as far as Gentoo Linux development, business
ventures etc. have a certain secrecy over them which i don't find
particular appropriate either. But to a certain degree that is not
directly related to the distro as a whole.


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] FORK: The Time Is Now

[Daniel Armyr]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 475 bytes --]

> There is not much to say. I can tell you there's nothing special in
> area 51, but if you want to believe it won't change your mind.

Perhaps there isn't, but as long as a big piece of desert is surrounded by fences saying 'Keep Out', people will never quite believe you. 

--Daniel Armyr

-- 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
daniel.armyr@home.se	f00-dar@f.kth.se
Tegnergatan 40 rum 505	+46 8 8 31 52 17	
113 59 Stockholm	
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] FORK: The Time Is Now

[FRLinux]

Hi again,

On Thu, 2003-06-26 at 15:11, foser wrote:

> Gentoo is suffering from the 'secret conversations' urban myth. 

This is the way communication was handled, don't blame anyone else for
it.

> The lack of visibility is the lack of organization and the pretty much
> total freedom developers had, there was no real need to communicate on
> certain points because it worked as it was. While this had its merits
> and made Gentoo in what it is today i see more and more that this isn't
> sufficient anymore (i come from a time when it was possible). This is
> what the proposed top-level structure intends to tackle.

Agreed, we need a changing structure and the draft master plan looks
very good in respect of that.

> There is not much to say. I can tell you there's nothing special in area
> 51, but if you want to believe it won't change your mind.

Ok, i do believe you, so where is this GFDL link and reference which
should be applied to docs* ?

Steph

> PS III. This mail goes as far as Gentoo Linux development, business
> ventures etc. have a certain secrecy over them which i don't find
> particular appropriate either. But to a certain degree that is not
> directly related to the distro as a whole.

I used to work for 'OpenSource' companies which were doing business with
opensource software and developers, nothing against it so far except
they didn't quite play by the rules after a while. I'm not implying that
is what Gentoo does because i don't know ...

Steph
-- 
Mail sent on Gentoo 1.4rc3 k2421 AMD 2600+
http://frlinux.net - frlinux@frlinux.net
http://gentoofr.org - Portail Francais sur Gentoo Linux




--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Growing Gentoo

[Daniel Robbins]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1317 bytes --]

On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 05:10:55PM +0200, Daniel Armyr wrote:
> Perhaps there isn't, but as long as a big piece of desert is surrounded by
> fences saying 'Keep Out', people will never quite believe you. 

Yep. Part of the problem is that we're now a large, extremely popular Linux
meta-distribution with "mom and pop" community development procedures for
everything. They were appropriate when we were smaller, but now that
quite a few people are thinking that we're the next big thing, people get
paranoid and they want more disclosure.

That's fine and understandable. We are hackers, and our primary focus has
always been coding and improving Gentoo. Now we're looking at what we've
created, realizing how big it's become, and taking the necessary steps to
reorganize to address the scale and popularity of our project.

If anyone on this list has any suggestions or areas that they would like
addressed, please email Seemant Kulleen at seemant@gentoo.org. He is keeping
a master list of all user feedback relating to "growth issues," and his
list will be used as a primary source of inspiration for upcoming plans
to improve our accountability and responsiveness to our various user 
communities.

Best Regards,

-- 
Daniel Robbins
Chief Architect, Gentoo Linux
http://www.gentoo.org

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] FORK: The Time Is Now

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: signed data --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 2036 bytes --]

On Thursday 26 June 2003 14:28, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> OK, here's what I am thinking about.  While you respect that Daniel does
> not want to get into a mud slinging contest, you're asking him to.  As far
> as an account of what happened, it really makes no difference -- it's a
> point of one's word against another's word.
>
> The crux however, is that you mentioned issues that were raised.  I rather
> believe those issues are what should be addressed, rather than "he said
> this, but this is what happened" because the latter is futile, and this
> isn't Jerry Springer.
>
> So, let's get those issues which need addressing out into the open instead,
> shall we.
>
> This is going to -dev, but it's targetted mainly at the gentoo developers
> (no offense to anyone else, and your input is very much welcomed as well). 
> This is my invitation.  You can email the list or email me privately (so
> that there is confidentiality, if you're worried about that) and tell me
> your issues.  While you're at it, tell me the 3 biggest things you'd like
> to see changed, and how.
>
> You say it's about transparency, I say, if you have a gripe, voice it so it
> can be seen.  If it is not seen, it can not be addressed.  As a member of
> the gentoo leadership, this is my invitation to you.

Personally I have only one issue that could be addressed. It concerns portage. 
There are many features that portage will implement someday and that have 
allready been identified. Many of those TODO's have been there a long time. 
While I know that it is necessary to keep portage stable, and I know that 
adding features is much work, I would like to know the status of those 
features.

Paul

ps. As a suggestion, I understand that current portage might need a rewrite 
for parts. If it is not too straining a testing portage might be made to 
accommodate such a rewrite, while maintaining the current portage.

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Researcher
Mail: pauldv@cs.kun.nl
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Portage features implementation

[Daniel Robbins]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1840 bytes --]

On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 08:28:23PM +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> Personally I have only one issue that could be addressed. It concerns portage. 
> There are many features that portage will implement someday and that have 
> allready been identified. Many of those TODO's have been there a long time. 
> While I know that it is necessary to keep portage stable, and I know that 
> adding features is much work, I would like to know the status of those 
> features.

Me too :) In our existing management structure, you'll see that carpaski is
the operational manager for portage, and as such will be responsible for
providing weekly updates on the status of his project, just like all
managers will. These status updates will be publicly available and linked to
on our Web site. You'll also see that I specifically listed a "package
research" sub-project that will be involved in architecting new
functionality for Portage.

Also, if other projects or sub-projects need functionality in Portage, they
can inform their respective top-level managers about these needed features.
Then it's the the responsibility of that top-level manager to communicate these
needs to carpaski at the top-level manager meeting, and coordinating with
carpaski to find an agreeable and reasonable schedule for implementation.

This is how it is intended to work for all projects that have specific needs
from other projects. Your respective top-level manager should be your
ombudsman and work to get needed features on the roadmap of other projects.

I believe that this arrangement address all your concerns. Please let me
know if that's not the case, and anyone is welcome to chime in if they see
an opportunity to improve this process.

Best Regards,

-- 
Daniel Robbins
Chief Architect, Gentoo Linux
http://www.gentoo.org

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] FORK: The Time Is Now

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: signed data --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 896 bytes --]

On Thursday 26 June 2003 18:26, FRLinux wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> On Thu, 2003-06-26 at 15:11, foser wrote:
> > Gentoo is suffering from the 'secret conversations' urban myth.
>
> This is the way communication was handled, don't blame anyone else for
> it.

Nah, this is how things work. Really gentoo-core is not that interesting, but 
there are some things that need to be more or less private. One reason is 
that there is less chance to fall on your face in a private list (well a bit 
private). Another big point is that gentoo needs to speak with one voice on 
certain issues. For such a thing first internal consensus has to be reached. 
A private core list actually increases openness in such cases as else only a 
smaller group of people would be involved in such issues.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Researcher
Mail: pauldv@cs.kun.nl
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] FORK: The Time Is Now

[FRLinux]

On Thu, 2003-06-26 at 20:23, Paul de Vrieze wrote:

> that there is less chance to fall on your face in a private list (well a bit 

Cheers, this is really the kind of comment i am after. Something about diplomacy.

Steph


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] FORK: The Time Is Now

[Terje Kvernes]

Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@gentoo.org> writes:

  [ ... ]

> Personally I have only one issue that could be addressed. It
> concerns portage.  There are many features that portage will
> implement someday and that have allready been identified. 

  I might have more issues than just portage, but portage is a big
  one.  I've made four separate attempts to "get into" portage and
  produce some sane patches to the code, only to give up when trying
  to make heads or tails of the code itself.

  to be blunt, one thing Zynot and Zachary Welch has going for them is
  the goal of rebuilding portage.  I just they've learned.  a clean,
  modular codebase as well as interchangable front- and backends would
  be a simple requirement.  

> Many of those TODO's have been there a long time.  While I know that
> it is necessary to keep portage stable, and I know that adding
> features is much work, I would like to know the status of those
> features.

  if you've looked at the code there is a good reason why we're not
  seeing a lot of developers jumping into portage.
 
> ps. As a suggestion, I understand that current portage might need a
> rewrite for parts. If it is not too straining a testing portage
> might be made to accommodate such a rewrite, while maintaining the
> current portage.

  the current portage should be modularized and documented before
  anything else is done to it.  a test version would be a godsend, and
  I for one would be more than happy to contribute and test that piece
  of code.

-- 
Terje

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list