From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3652 invoked by uid 1002); 16 Jul 2003 00:30:22 -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 24738 invoked from network); 16 Jul 2003 00:30:21 -0000 Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:30:43 -0600 From: Daniel Robbins To: John Davis Cc: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Message-ID: <20030716003043.GA18366@inventor.gentoo.org> References: <20030715094234.6f6f2636.zhen@gentoo.org> <20030715192354.GA17219@inventor.gentoo.org> <20030715162704.472febd0.zhen@gentoo.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="cWoXeonUoKmBZSoM" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030715162704.472febd0.zhen@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: Gentoo Technologies, Inc. Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo part III? X-Archives-Salt: 010b2f5c-f47b-4fe3-abc1-1057fff14bfd X-Archives-Hash: b1b16883624305b0018be046488363a2 --cWoXeonUoKmBZSoM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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'?=20 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.=20 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?=20 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.=20 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, --=20 Daniel Robbins Chief Architect, Gentoo Linux http://www.gentoo.org --cWoXeonUoKmBZSoM Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/FJyzffezrJ9WV/IRAj5IAJ4k8qbh/dDU8WK94+ca9ZEGYZwCLACfb0Bv YU9LDOVv1IEHuZbiphuxHE0= =mYy9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --cWoXeonUoKmBZSoM--