From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16381 invoked by uid 1002); 15 Jul 2003 11:51:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 29955 invoked from network); 15 Jul 2003 11:51:20 -0000 Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:51:18 +0200 From: Spider To: John Davis Cc: gentoo-core@gentoo.org, gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Message-Id: <20030715135118.41d63bfa.spider@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <20030714214621.33b75fbd.zhen@gentoo.org> References: <20030714214621.33b75fbd.zhen@gentoo.org> Organization: Chaotic X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.3 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"; boundary="=.l7iVeY,nhEVXCB" Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo part II. X-Archives-Salt: 94ee8960-c07d-437b-88c1-8ced1efda2a1 X-Archives-Hash: 3ea66c71f544e6fb255c1f00fa45f9cb --=.l7iVeY,nhEVXCB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit begin quote On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 21:46:21 -0400 John Davis wrote: > Good evening all: Not as good as it could have been. You dropped a bomb here in the idle summer idyll of our list. And there's a lot of people who reacted to it. As expected I think. I won't go through doing point-to-point rebuttals to your suggestions here, frankly because I don't have the clarity of mind to do so in a well thought out way. Constitution.. We should protect our users, for what? erm? perhaps some limits on the management team, that they should not use their management position or be in a management position if they have an ulterior goal other than Gentoo? (We need to port this to f00-arch now! since I'll earn money off it in private... *Evil glimmer of eyes and small portrouding horns out of $NEW_MANAGERS head.) Voting, Just who'm would be voting? So far all I've see as proposals about voiting have been a developer (or a few) with an idea, and along with the vote goes a technical debate, so iun turn itslike the discussion of a RFC where you either agree or disagree, but also -comment- in a useful way. To take this and separate it further into blown-out global-dev votes would remove a lot of that good discussion, frankly I -want- the opinions of other developers (hey, they are technically inclined, and I trust them to to either shut up or find out more if they think they aren't.). Instead it would risk falling down to the lovely anonymous feeling of foo voted Bar, at which turn we'd loose another asset. Discussion. Wether the momentum that is needed to make it happen exists or not, is another thing. Some such ideas might be hard to do but necessary, and in that case I trust the -management- to bring it up and space it out to developers tehy think are capable of doing it. And if failing to do so, do it t hemselves. :-) Terms for managers? Well, there are terms. until they grow tired, until the people they manage go tired (I expect it to happen sometime. There will be a small set of rumblings on irc about a manager thats hard to get hold of, then a note will be sent to the list. "Could you managers kick $MANAGER in the ass and make him around more?" . At this point I'd expect management to be self-managing enough to either kick (and perhaps kick hard) or replace said $MANAGER. Structuring it further and implying more limits will force even more of the bothers of politics around, and frankly. Can you people show me a democracy that works? No, not in theory, in practice... (don't reply to this last statement, if you do you fall into the flame-trap) Meeting procedure. Ergh. Frankly, as I've seen it they have managed surprisingly well. Not all meetings -need- to be strict and formal after the rule-set dictated by your local church. (point one, apply meeting leader. point two assign secretary. point three, assign.... Whereby the meeting starts after 20-30 minutes with the 9th post on the list which is to read through last weeks protocol and jury it as valid or not. SHeeesh.) Frankly, I think they do it well. Let them keep doing it in a way they are comfortable with. its more important (for me) that developers are comfortable than that they follow procedure. (remember, managers are also developers. perhaps not in life, but this is better. ;-) Regards, Spider -- begin .signature This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature! See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information. end --=.l7iVeY,nhEVXCB Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/E+q4ZS9CZTi033kRAghjAKCJjqf2FpaGhMRKRr8FDP/rbzlmNgCgpCmw +g62soyJ8fAVTTAEcKSf7tk= =tpha -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=.l7iVeY,nhEVXCB--