[gentoo-dev] Gentoo part IIa.

[gentoo-dev] Gentoo part IIa.

[John Davis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2520 bytes --]

Good day everyone:
First, I would like to thank all of those who have participated in this conversation, and lambaste those who have decided to start a flame war. In order for *anything* to get figured out, it is the latter that need time to discuss all avenues rationally.

Now for my rebuttal:

Perhaps the most resistance that I have seen stems from the fear the I am proposing a bureaucracy to impose upon the Gentoo that we a all know and love. In a way, yes, I am proposing such a thing.

I will be the first to admit that I do not like big government, weighed down policies, and massive bureaucracy. So why would I propose something like this?

Over the past year that I have been developing for Gentoo Linux, I have seen a major change not only in our user base, but in development itself. The statistics that I have heard on our user base are shocking. When I started developing, there were about 25K or so users; at this point, there are over 250K. While my numbers may not be accurate, they surely portray the greatly heightened mindshare in Gentoo Linux.

Step back for a minute and recognize the ramifications of those numbers. The product that we baby and work on is used by over a _quarter of a million_ people. Over a _quarter of a million_ people rely on our QA procedure for stable packages, our security, our openness. No matter what your political philosophy, this fact should awe you.

So how can me still deliver the same quality product to all of these people? Organization, rules, and voting, to name a few. I referenced Debian because they have an exceptional model that is in place and working. Yes, I know that Debian is not bleeding edge and their releases take forever. Think though, have you ever heard a complaint about Debian's stability, not only in Debian Linux, but in their management as well?

With over 200 developers (correct me if I am wrong Kurt), Gentoo has started to come of age. Like any precocious teenager, Gentoo needs guidance. It is time to grow up and realize what exactly we are doing here, and realize that while utopian ideals are nice, they do not work, and do not apply to the real world.

Once again, I encourage you all to perpetuate this dialogue with open and intellectual posts. Flame bait and/ or flames do nothing but hinder the process of figuring out what needs to be done.

Regards,
//zhen 

-- 
John Davis
Gentoo Linux Developer
<http://www.gentoo.org/~zhen>

----
Knowledge can be more terrible than ignorance if you're powerless to change your world.

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo part IIa.

[John Davis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 421 bytes --]

> Totally agree with you. Thank you for your wisdom !
> 

Thank you.

With Grant's guidance, I would like to submit this as an offical GLEP, for consideration by all.

BTW, I posted this to -dev only, to alleviate the crossposting pains ;).

Regards,
//zhen

-- 
John Davis
Gentoo Linux Developer
<http://www.gentoo.org/~zhen>

----
Knowledge can be more terrible than ignorance if you're powerless to change your world.

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo part IIa.

[Brad Laue]

John Davis wrote:
> Good day everyone: First, I would like to thank all of those who have
> participated in this conversation, and lambaste those who have
> decided to start a flame war. In order for *anything* to get figured
> out, it is the latter that need time to discuss all avenues
> rationally.

Fair enough. ;)

> 
> Step back for a minute and recognize the ramifications of those
> numbers. The product that we baby and work on is used by over a
> _quarter of a million_ people. Over a _quarter of a million_ people
> rely on our QA procedure for stable packages, our security, our
> openness. No matter what your political philosophy, this fact should
> awe you.

I think this is the crux of all our concern, all management and 
organisational decisions revolve around QA, among other primary concerns 
like architecture and so on.

My opinion is that QA procedures can be created without forming a 
government of sorts, or creating a political landscape. There are 
development cultures which succesfully separate the issues surrounding 
architecture, financing and future directions within the distribution 
from the QA process, by placing it on the outskirts of 'governance', and 
I do think we would be wise to do the same.

> So how can me still deliver the same quality product to all of these
> people? Organization, rules, and voting, to name a few. I referenced
> Debian because they have an exceptional model that is in place and
> working. Yes, I know that Debian is not bleeding edge and their
> releases take forever. Think though, have you ever heard a complaint
> about Debian's stability, not only in Debian Linux, but in their
> management as well?

Debian may be stable, but Woody's sheer age really does indicate that 
something is wrong with their development model. I don't imagine 
suggesting a faster paced release model to their core developers would 
be met with much openness, nor would it be put to a vote. FreeBSD and 
RedHat, to name two, have live package build systems (ports/rawhide 
respectively) and cut a release from these every four months on the dot 
with impeccable QA. I don't think I could suggest such a thing to Debian 
developers without being laughed out of the discussion.

Another member of the previous thread mentioned the Linux kernel, if 
briefly. Look at how well it works in its development model. A core 
group of members make decisions as to where the kernel will be in 1, 5, 
10 years, and the rest of the process looks, to the outside world, 
almost entirely haphazard. There is no need for constitutions or 
elections or a legal department, and yet Linux is thriving and growing 
at an extraordinary rate. And it has few enough QA problems that fortune 
100 corporations use it!

It is my contention that the development culture *creates* the product. 
I believe Debian is what it is now because of the way it is managed, and 
Linux is what it is now because of the way *it* is managed.

If I seem staunchly opposed to introducing Debian concepts to Gentoo, 
it's because I am. ;)

My intention though, is not to attempt to close the discussion. If 
through the process an outcome can be reached which seems reasonable to 
all sides, all the better.

Cheers,
Brad


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo part IIa.

[Grant Goodyear]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 681 bytes --]

> With Grant's guidance, I would like to submit this as an offical GLEP,
> for consideration by all.

Zhen,
  Take a look at http://glep.gentoo.org and you'll find GLEP 1 which
details the rationale behind GLEPs along with what a GLEP should have in
it.  I'm recommending that people use ReST to create their GLEPs (GLEP
2), but you're welcome to use guide-xml if you prefer (see GLEP 4 for an
example).  If you want a brief example of the structure of a GLEP, take
a look at GLEP 7.  When you're done, e-mail your GLEP to
glep@gentoo.org.  If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me
or liquidx.

Best,
g2boojum
-- 
Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@gentoo.org>

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo part IIa.

[John Davis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4340 bytes --]

I am moving this discussion to -dev, where it ought to be...

> I think this is the crux of all our concern, all management and 
> organisational decisions revolve around QA, among other primary concerns 
> like architecture and so on.
>

Since quality should be the primary goal of any well run organization, I wholeheartedly agree.
 
> My opinion is that QA procedures can be created without forming a 
> government of sorts, or creating a political landscape. There are 
> development cultures which succesfully separate the issues surrounding 
> architecture, financing and future directions within the distribution 
> from the QA process, by placing it on the outskirts of 'governance', and 
> I do think we would be wise to do the same.

Which is the issue that we are debating indirectly. I see a form of government, either lose or tight, as something Gentoo requires to grow. Other people may see differently. Of course, I am always open to compromise.

I am interested in the development cultures that you are speaking about. I assume that one of them is the Linux kernel team that you have described below? Could you elaborate more please?

> Debian may be stable, but Woody's sheer age really does indicate that 
> something is wrong with their development model. I don't imagine 
> suggesting a faster paced release model to their core developers would 
> be met with much openness, nor would it be put to a vote. FreeBSD and 
> RedHat, to name two, have live package build systems (ports/rawhide 
> respectively) and cut a release from these every four months on the dot 
> with impeccable QA. I don't think I could suggest such a thing to Debian 
> developers without being laughed out of the discussion.
> 

To a degree, I agree with you. Debian is very outdated in some respects. Again, what I do like about Debian is their upmost concern for QA (even if it is misplaced a bit), and their commitment to developer's rights. Gentoo should never, ever try to emulate Debian. We need to figure out our own policies, and Debian is a nice example to begin with.

> Another member of the previous thread mentioned the Linux kernel, if 
> briefly. Look at how well it works in its development model. A core 
> group of members make decisions as to where the kernel will be in 1, 5, 
> 10 years, and the rest of the process looks, to the outside world, 
> almost entirely haphazard. There is no need for constitutions or 
> elections or a legal department, and yet Linux is thriving and growing 
> at an extraordinary rate. And it has few enough QA problems that fortune 
> 100 corporations use it!
> 

Again, even though the kernel team is very successful, I am sure that they have some sort of vote tracking system, development policy (if just for the managers), etc. Additionally, creating a single software program, which the kernel is, and creating a distribution are two entirely different things. There are so many aspects that we have to concentrate on. The single greatest difference between the kernel team and ourselves is size. They can get away with lax management because their core team is so small. Additionally, does Gentoo even have a set team of people who plan for 5, 10, even 15 years down the road?

> It is my contention that the development culture *creates* the product. 
> I believe Debian is what it is now because of the way it is managed, and 
> Linux is what it is now because of the way *it* is managed.
> 

Absolutely. Gentoo follows the same phenmenon.

> If I seem staunchly opposed to introducing Debian concepts to Gentoo, 
> it's because I am. ;)
> 

Me too. Like I said, I don't want Gentoo Debian Linux.

> My intention though, is not to attempt to close the discussion. If 
> through the process an outcome can be reached which seems reasonable to 
> all sides, all the better.
> 

Absolutely!

Please do not think that I am attempting to make Gentoo Linux, Debian Linux. Both camps surely have their shortcomings. Gentoo is at a crossroads though, and we need to decide how we want to run the distribution. If we can find a balance between management structure and developer's freedom, then by all means, let's.

Regards,
//zhen

-- 
John Davis
Gentoo Linux Developer
<http://www.gentoo.org/~zhen>

----
Knowledge can be more terrible than ignorance if you're powerless to change your world.

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo part IIa.

[Martin, Stephen]

Brad Laue wrote:
> Debian may be stable, but Woody's sheer age really does indicate that 
> something is wrong with their development model. I don't imagine 
> suggesting a faster paced release model to their core developers would 
> be met with much openness, nor would it be put to a vote. FreeBSD and 
> RedHat, to name two, have live package build systems (ports/rawhide 
> respectively) and cut a release from these every four months on the dot 
> with impeccable QA. I don't think I could suggest such a thing to Debian 
> developers without being laughed out of the discussion.
> 

My impression is that the paralysis we've all seen in the Debian 
community is due to two factors: 1) ridiculously inflexible rules 
regarding free vs. non-free software and 2) a 
we're-the-best-and-don't-need-to-change attitude.  I've seen long and 
apparently serious discussions on the Debian lists over whether gcc 
should be removed from the main distro because the man pages aren't 
released under a "free" license.  I've seen hundreds (who knows, 
thousands?) of posts describing problems with apt-get and deselect 
dismissed cavilierly.  In my opinion THAT is what's killing Debian - the 
inability to distinguish worthwhile questions from intellectual 
masturbation and the unwillingness to accept criticism.  I don't see 
either of these elements present in Gentoo now, and I don't see zhen's 
proposals changing that.

As for the long time between Debian releases, it seems to me that trying 
to support 10,000 packages on 11 architectures with "rock-solid 
stability" is a big part of that.  Again, I don't see anything in zhen's 
proposal on that order of magnitude.  Certainly, asking one attendee of 
a meeting to dump a log to the website isn't going to slow development.

Heck, the glacial pace of Debian releases wouldn't even be a problem if 
their upgrade system was robust.  "Install the old version, then run 
apt-get upgrade repeatedly until the conflicts go away" isn't 
acceptable.  Again, Gentoo does not suffer from this problem - it's 
essentially a releaseless distro.



-- 
Stephen C. Martin

PGP/GnuPG key 1024D/8C4FCA5D






--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo part IIa.

[John Davis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 912 bytes --]

....will not post beginning of post due to saneness...
> Heck, the glacial pace of Debian releases wouldn't even be a problem if 
> their upgrade system was robust.  "Install the old version, then run 
> apt-get upgrade repeatedly until the conflicts go away" isn't 
> acceptable.  Again, Gentoo does not suffer from this problem - it's 
> essentially a releaseless distro.
> 
> 
> 

Stephen:
I could not agree more. The culture of Gentoo will not allow it to go stagnant like Debian has. We are known for our openness and friendliness with everyone, from the developer to the newbie.

Gentoo will only get bogged down in a bureaucratic mess if we allow it. There is such a thing as a sane, efficient, democratic, governing system.

Regards,
//zhen

-- 
John Davis
Gentoo Linux Developer
<http://www.gentoo.org/~zhen>

----
Knowledge can be more terrible than ignorance if you're powerless to change your world.

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

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] Gentoo part IIa.

[Stewart Honsberger]

John Davis wrote:
> Step back for a minute and recognize the ramifications of those numbers. The product that
 > we baby and work on is used by over a _quarter of a million_ people. 
Over a _quarter of
 >a million_ people rely on our QA procedure for stable packages, our 
security, our openness.
 > No matter what your political philosophy, this fact should awe you.

That's a point I'd have to disagree with you on. A quarter of a million 
people enjoy our quick turn-around time and ease for users to become 
involved in the development of the distribution. If they're relying on 
us for stability or any kind of guarantee of reliability, sorry, but 
they're in the wrong place. Debian, RedHat are thattaway -->

Gentoo is a bleeding-edge hacker's distribution. It's Linux From Scratch 
with a package manager. It is not a corporate or enterprise platform.

It could develop to the point where we maintain our current status quo 
*AND* we find ourselves with a stable branch upon which businesses can 
rely, but that is not Gentoo, nor will it be Gentoo if we overlay it 
with politics and beaurocracy to the point where users are afraid to get 
involved and we find a wedge between the developers and the user base.

If it comes to such a time, I will resign as a developer. I didn't sign 
up for this to be some sort of elite beaurocrat with voting authority 
and managerial restrictions. I signed up for it so that I could 
contribute ebuilds without going through a middle-man.

Your proposal was well written, obviously thought out, and quite 
eloquent. However, I think you'd be better served to submit it to 
Debian-Private.

-- 
Stewart Honsberger
Gentoo Developer
http://www.snerk.org/


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo part III?

[Daniel Robbins]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4808 bytes --]

On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 09:42:34AM -0400, John Davis wrote:
> First, I would like to thank all of those who have participated in this
> conversation, and lambaste those who have decided to start a flame war. In
> order for *anything* to get figured out, it is the latter that need time
> to discuss all avenues rationally.

I really haven't seen any flames. I don't think it's appropriate to label
those who happen to plainly disagree with you as flamers.

And since you are a Gentoo developer and represent this project, I'd ask
that you please stop taking this approach because I find it to be
disrespectful to our users. 

Your comment above is patronizing to our users who are simply trying to
share their opinions.

> So why would I propose something like this?

I think it's because a few days ago, you did not get a position within the
project that you wanted. Therefore, you have an axe to grind with the
management team. That's my personal theory. I don't think it's based on your
year of careful observation, as much as I'd like to believe it.

Some of your ideas might be OK if they are refined a bit more and their
scope is defined -- I am very much in agreement with Brandon Low's view --
which is identical to Kurt Lieber's view, from what I can tell.  We need to
improve in areas so we can grow and improve, but without crippling what
makes Gentoo "Gentoo."

However, your condescending attitude towards our users gives me the
impression that you are still a bit out of sorts over recent events, and may
not be the best person to spearhead this effort you are undertaking.

> Once again, I encourage you all to perpetuate this dialogue with open and
> intellectual posts. Flame bait and/ or flames do nothing but hinder the
> process of figuring out what needs to be done.

We already have a management team that is actively and swiftly getting
things done, as you know:

http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/hardened/
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/infrastructure/
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gentoo-alt/
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/releng/
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/alpha/
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gdp/
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/metastructure/
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/portage/

Currently, new managers are elected by unanimous vote of the existing
managers. I am sorry you are upset that you were not elected as manager, but
I also think it's disingenuous for you to *not* mention this fact when you
are proposing ideas like term limits and, as a developer, spearheading this
"reform" campaign rather than assisting in the existing and ambitious effort
that is underway. 

I think that what happened a few days ago is connected to your term limits
idea, as an example, as well as being a large motivating factor for your
"reform" effort.  Can you honestly claim that you had this term limits idea
*before* you were not elected to a manager position? Can you honestly say
that you are dispassionate -- unaffected by your own personal emotions -- in
your analysis of what Gentoo currently needs?

I don't think you can say that. 

You have had good ideas about our management structure in the past, but this
new effort is clearly different from your previous collaborative idea
sharing, both in content, tone, and in how you are choosing to interact with
users who happen to have differing views. It feels like a political campaign.

And I would have sent this email privately if not for the fact that you are
being unreasonable in your posts. Since you are not representing Gentoo in a way
that I consider to be appropriate, I need to jump in like this and say "I
disagree with your approach." Because at this point, it's important for our
users to know that you certainly don't represent my ideas or views, and that
your general vision may not be entirely shared by those on our management
team.

I don't want our users to get the idea that your ideas necessarily reflect
where Gentoo is headed. Some of your ideas may be implemented, some may not,
but we are not on a holy mission to create a bureaucracy. As we move forward
in our efforts to establish a not-for-profit entity, it's important for our
users to know that we are aggressively working to intentify the good things
that makes Gentoo "Gentoo" and ensure that they remain intact.

We are being very careful to not destroy the very good things about Gentoo
in our efforts to improve areas that need to be improved. I seen it clearly
demonstrated that our management team is very much attuned to this critical
balance. I encourage you to support their efforts.

Sincerely,

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

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo part III?

[John Davis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 9095 bytes --]

> I really haven't seen any flames. I don't think it's appropriate to label
> those who happen to plainly disagree with you as flamers.
> 

I think that we are in a misunderstanding here. Usually, when someone replies to me ranting, I consider that a flame because there is no reason to talk in that tone. Maybe I mislabeled, if I did, I am sorry.

> And since you are a Gentoo developer and represent this project, I'd ask
> that you please stop taking this approach because I find it to be
> disrespectful to our users. 
> 

What approach? The mail or the 'flamer' accusation? I only accused one such person, and as I have said, I am sorry if I was wrong. All of the other people that have disagreed with me have done so in a fair manner, and I have addressed them as such. I don't mind if people disagree with me, in fact I enjoy it. Many opinions are the only way to create one majority agreement.

> Your comment above is patronizing to our users who are simply trying to
> share their opinions.
> 

Opinions and flames are two entirely different things. I am sure that most others can agree with this.

> > So why would I propose something like this?
> 
> I think it's because a few days ago, you did not get a position within the
> project that you wanted. Therefore, you have an axe to grind with the
> management team. That's my personal theory. I don't think it's based on your
> year of careful observation, as much as I'd like to believe it.
> 

Daniel, I am sorry to find out that you believe this. Of course, I cannot change your mind, but I can at least try to provide some information.

I have not mentioned my position change in the project *at all* in my proposal. Although the events leading up to that vote have something to do with my proposal, they do not constitute the entire reason I decided to write it. I decided to write the proposal because I deeply care about the direction of Gentoo Linux, and the simple reason that I see problems that can be easily remedied.

I have no axe to grind with the management team. What's done is done, no matter if it was right or wrong. It is time to move on, fix problems, rinse, wash, and repeat. If you would like to make this a confrontation, be my guest, I just will have no part in it. 

> Some of your ideas might be OK if they are refined a bit more and their
> scope is defined -- I am very much in agreement with Brandon Low's view --
> which is identical to Kurt Lieber's view, from what I can tell.  We need to
> improve in areas so we can grow and improve, but without crippling what
> makes Gentoo "Gentoo."
> 

Right, we need to do exactly that. I would like to know one thing though, how are democratic ideas and procedures damaging to the 'Gentoo way'? Am I missing something? If my proposals would damage Gentoo Linux, which I firmly believe they will not, then we all need to reconsider what exactly the 'Gentoo way' is. Maybe you could inform us?

> However, your condescending attitude towards our users gives me the
> impression that you are still a bit out of sorts over recent events, and may
> not be the best person to spearhead this effort you are undertaking.
>

Whether or not I spearhead *my* effort is my decision.

I am sore about what happened, but I am trying my best to be proactive, and I think that I am doing a very good job at it.

As far as being condescending to our users, you are off base. I have been trying very hard to facilitate educational and fair discussion. If anyone feels that I have wronged them, please inform me, and I will apoligize publicly, if applicable.

> We already have a management team that is actively and swiftly getting
> things done, as you know:
> 
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/hardened/
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/infrastructure/
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gentoo-alt/
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/releng/
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/alpha/
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gdp/
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/metastructure/
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/portage/
> 

I never said that we didn't. All that I am suggesting is changes and improvements.

> Currently, new managers are elected by unanimous vote of the existing
> managers. I am sorry you are upset that you were not elected as manager, but
> I also think it's disingenuous for you to *not* mention this fact when you
> are proposing ideas like term limits and, as a developer, spearheading this
> "reform" campaign rather than assisting in the existing and ambitious effort
> that is underway. 

This is not assisting? Is open discussion something that does not 'help'? What is your definition of help? As far as projects, if you don't remember, I **created** the entire GDP project page, including the Roadmap, sub-projects, etc. 

Like I said Daniel, I am trying my best to be proactive and help in anyway that I can. If proposing improvements to management is counterproductive to the 'Gentoo way' aforementioned, then I am working for the wrong distribution.

> 
> I think that what happened a few days ago is connected to your term limits
> idea, as an example, as well as being a large motivating factor for your
> "reform" effort.  Can you honestly claim that you had this term limits idea
> *before* you were not elected to a manager position? Can you honestly say
> that you are dispassionate -- unaffected by your own personal emotions -- in
> your analysis of what Gentoo currently needs?
> 
> I don't think you can say that. 

As far as terms, that is not related at all to my position. The term idea came about because it is an accepted way to make sure that managers of any organization remain the trustees of their constituency.

And yes, I can say that my personal emotions did not have an impact on my recent proposal. Again, for the hundreth time, my proposal was crafted because I saw the need for improvements.

> 
> You have had good ideas about our management structure in the past, but this
> new effort is clearly different from your previous collaborative idea
> sharing, both in content, tone, and in how you are choosing to interact with
> users who happen to have differing views. It feels like a political campaign.
> 

Your feelings are, well, your feelings. I am sorry if you feel that way.

> And I would have sent this email privately if not for the fact that you are
> being unreasonable in your posts. Since you are not representing Gentoo in a way
> that I consider to be appropriate, I need to jump in like this and say "I
> disagree with your approach." Because at this point, it's important for our
> users to know that you certainly don't represent my ideas or views, and that
> your general vision may not be entirely shared by those on our management
> team.
> 

Unreasonable? So it is unreasonable to open a forums about issues that are a point of contention with you? As for not sharing your views Daniel, the whole purpose of the management restructuring was to remove absolute power from one single entity. You are not Gentoo Linux Open Source Project Daniel Robbins, the management team and developers are. I have not been met with any resistance up to this point, in fact, most people have been very willing to communicate with me, compromise with me, etc. I will *not* be censored just because you do not believe with me.

> I don't want our users to get the idea that your ideas necessarily reflect
> where Gentoo is headed. Some of your ideas may be implemented, some may not,
> but we are not on a holy mission to create a bureaucracy. As we move forward
> in our efforts to establish a not-for-profit entity, it's important for our
> users to know that we are aggressively working to intentify the good things
> that makes Gentoo "Gentoo" and ensure that they remain intact.
> 

It is very important to know, and to a point, be involved, which is what the forum I opened is doing.

> We are being very careful to not destroy the very good things about Gentoo
> in our efforts to improve areas that need to be improved. I seen it clearly
> demonstrated that our management team is very much attuned to this critical
> balance. I encourage you to support their efforts.
> 

I do support them, but obviously, not as you define 'support'. Again, I state:

I WILL NOT be censored in my proposals. They are not meant to be inflammatory, as you are trying to make them. All that I am doing is trying to open an intellectual dialogue about the problems that I see within the Gentoo management structure. I have absolutely no bone to pick with the management team, and I do not mean to mar the name of Gentoo Linux.

I am very sorry if I have offended you Daniel, but I am not on the offensive against you or Gentoo. If you wish to take disciplinary action against me, so be it, just realize that you are setting a precedent for Gentoo, a precedent that is loathed by all.

Regards,
//zhen


-- 
John Davis
Gentoo Linux Developer
<http://www.gentoo.org/~zhen>

----
Knowledge can be more terrible than ignorance if you're powerless to change your world.

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo part III?

[Daniel Robbins]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5240 bytes --]

On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 04:27:04PM -0400, John Davis wrote:

> I have not mentioned my position change in the project *at all* in my
> proposal. Although the events leading up to that vote have something to do
> with my proposal, they do not constitute the entire reason I decided to
> write it. I decided to write the proposal because I deeply care about the
> direction of Gentoo Linux, and the simple reason that I see problems that
> can be easily remedied.

OK, so recent events did have something to do with your proposal.  I did
pick up on that in what you wrote.

> Right, we need to do exactly that. I would like to know one thing though,
> how are democratic ideas and procedures damaging to the 'Gentoo way'? 

They aren't. What I think could be damaging is to ignore the current
Gentoo-wide efforts that are under way to solve these problems.

I also think that you know that we are all working at 110%, and your
email reads like a list of demands rather than any kind of assistance.
Comments like this don't help:

"Gentoo is at a crossroads: We can either continue to change and improve our
management structure, or simply die like many other Linux distributions."

So, our option is to accept your ideas or die? That's how it reads to me.
Because you obviously know that we are aggressively improving our management
structure as we speak.

We are very aware that a management structure must adapt to the needs of
Gentoo users and devs, and that it why we have a top-level *metastructure*
project devoted to this effort. You seem to ignore this.

Anyone looking fairly at what we have done should be able to see that we
*are* getting organized and are in the middle of implementing a management
structure that is making a big positive difference for Gentoo. 

Please understand that the way to ensure that the management structure
reflects your concerns is *not* to try to compete with it, but to actively
participate in the process via metastructure.

> Whether or not I spearhead *my* effort is my decision.

It's interesting that you refer to this as your personal effort. Please
participate in the Gentoo-wide effort going on currently.

> I will *not* be censored just because you do not believe with me.

It's not only if you are participating, but how you participate. If you
participate cooperatively, your ideas won't be ignored. Competing with an
existing in-progress plan is not a good way to participate. I don't know if
you thought that GLEP was the way to participate in the evolution of our
management structure, so you started a public rally for your issues? 

We have a project in place whose specific goal is to ensure that developer
and user management and general project issues are not ignored. By emailing
pauldv@gentoo.org, Paul will present your ideas at the weekly manager
meeting.

> I WILL NOT be censored in my proposals. They are not meant to be
> inflammatory, as you are trying to make them. All that I am doing is
> trying to open an intellectual dialogue about the problems that I see
> within the Gentoo management structure. I have absolutely no bone to pick
> with the management team, and I do not mean to mar the name of Gentoo
> Linux.

Consider what would happen if every develoepr began their own personal
effort to create a new, improved organizational structure on the
gentoo-dev mailing list, particularly right now. 

Now consider the alternative: what would happen if all these developers
decided to cooperate and support the existing effort by sending their ideas
to metastructure so that they could be represented in this process?

The first would lead to chaos, and the second would lead to a management
structure that reflects the needs of users and developers.

> I am very sorry if I have offended you Daniel, but I am not on the
> offensive against you or Gentoo. If you wish to take disciplinary action
> against me, so be it, just realize that you are setting a precedent for
> Gentoo, a precedent that is loathed by all.

I'm not taking disciplinary action against you, I'm trying to make sure that
users don't get treated as second-class citizens by developers. Honestly, I
have a real problem with our developers telling users what they should
think, or chewing them out just because they have a strong opinion that did
not happen to be the one you were hoping they would have.

For the future of Gentoo, users should tell *us* what they want to see, and
we should at least listen politely. If you don't agree, you should make an
effort to express the disagreement professionally without labeling them as
flamers or their opinions as invalid. That's not constructive conversation.

And developers should actively participate in the process that already
exists.

If you're going to be interacting with users, you should be asking them what
they think. I didn't have as much of a problem with your first email as I
did with your follow-ups. Although I may not completely agree with all your
ideas, my problem is with your approach and motivation for this effort, not
the ideas.

Sincerely,

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

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