From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32055 invoked by uid 1002); 16 Jul 2003 04:25:36 -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 32182 invoked from network); 16 Jul 2003 04:25:36 -0000 Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 00:25:33 -0400 From: Owen Gunden To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Message-ID: <20030716042531.GA29413@force.stwing.upenn.edu> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org References: <20030714214621.33b75fbd.zhen@gentoo.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo part II. X-Archives-Salt: f9e3b878-1d4c-4a09-bc8f-4d75058376b3 X-Archives-Hash: 530b7a336c07213573bc899ea93988d4 Just another user & couldn't agree more. On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 09:44:36PM -0400, Brett I. Holcomb wrote: > John, I've followed this thread and given this some thought and am submitting > my 2 cents as a simpel user who has only done one ebuild (in progress). > > 1. Who do I need protection from? I've not found the Gentoo management > doing anything I needed protection from. The Social contract is good enough > for me. > > 2. Voting on what? Gentoo does not appear to be a democracy nor should it > be. To be effective there have to be leaders/managers who can make decisions > without having to consult an entire constituancy or large group. If leaders > have to take a vote before they do anything then nothing will get done. > > In many cases we as users do vote. If there are enough request/bugs for a > package or feature it usually gets done. If there aren't enough requests or > no one wants to create or maintain a package then it doesn't get done. > > 3. Why? To be honest I don't see the links to Gentoo being community owned > nor do I see it as a democracy. Daniel Robbins started it and set it up and > now has people who have volunteered to help in many ways but it's his effort > that got things going and his vison that is to be followed. If Gentoo gets > to far off track then it will fall off in popularity and use. In short, > Daniel put the time and effort into starting it - it's his thing. Yes, he is > trying to set up an organization that will help keep it running and wants to > share it but still, it's his vision. If put all that effort into creating a > distro I'd sure want to make sure that I had a large say in the direction it > took. - yes, I would try and make sure it was "shared" but I would want to > set the direction of it. > > Much of this point sounds paranoid to me - are people really worrying about > what is happening to their interests? I understand they are volunteers - if > someone feels he's being abused and can't work it out he can stop doing work > for Gentoo. > > 4. Does Gentoo really need a parlimentary procedure? Yes, Robert's rules > have some guidelines that can help a meeting run smoothly but in all the > meetings I 've been in the entire process has not been used. In most project > meetings you state the objectives or scope and go from there getting input > and making decisions. > > I have never used debian but from all I've seen and heard (and not just in > this discussion) it is a nice distro but the stable branch is way behind in > what's available. Why use it as a model? > > Also, Gentoo leaders have recognized that the phenomenal growth has caused > problems (even slower growth would have caused this !). However, they > appear to be taking steps to react to this - why not see how those changes > work? > > As I said, I'm just a user but of all the distro's I've tried Gentoo is > really the best. It's eliminated RPM messes and frustration, it's solid and > stable (unless you're stupid enough to do ~arch on your production systems > ) , packages that I've needed are kept up to date, and it is easy to > maintain. I hate to see it turned into a bureucratic organization that > produces a dead distro. > > I'm not sure it's broken so let's not be too quick to fix it. > > > Good evening all: > > I am sure that you have all noticed the recent changes in the Gentoo Linux > > management. For this effort, I believe that our current managers should be > > applauded for thier candidness and openness. Although, as with any > > organization, there is always room for constant change and improvement. > > Gentoo's current position can be summarized by a quote from bussiness > > philosopher Edward Demming: > > > > Change is not mandatory, because survival is not a necessity. > > > > Gentoo is at a crossroads: We can either continue to change and improve our > > management structure, or simply die like many other Linux distributions. > > > > In light of this issue, I propose the following changes to the Gentoo > > management structure: > > > > 1. Constitution > > All great organizations realize the need to protect their most important > > asset, their volunteers and employees. Gentoo does not have such a > > document, therefore there is no 'legal' protection for the developers and > > volunteers. Although we all know that Gentoo is commited to this, it is > > nowhere in writing. > > > > References: The Debian Constitution > > http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution > > > > 2. Open voting > > At this point in time, there is no published ruleset for voting, and there > > is no public record of voting results. There is also no offical published > > method of calculating a voting quorum. Additionally, with regard to the > > election of new managers, the vote is kept secret > . > > > > In order for any democratic system that uses voting to be successful, there > > *must* be accountability, concrete rules, and open results. How can there > > possibly be accountability if the results of the vote are kept completely > > secret? The find line between an oligarchy and a representative democracy > > is voting accountability. The developers, managers, and uses *must* know > > that the Gentoo voting process is secure in its philosophy and practice. > > > > References: > > http://www.debian.org/vote/ (Voting policy) > > http://www.debian.org/vote/2002/vote_0001 (Sample voting results) > > http://www.debian.org/vote/howto_vote (John Davis Sample > voting ballot) > > > > 3. Defined terms for managers > > In order to preserve the balance of power, while at the same time > > protecting the rights and interests of the users and developers, it is > > necessary that all manager positions have a clear term length along with a > > clear and defined manager voting process (see above). > > > > The developers and users need to make sure that their interests are being > > maintained, and that the managers are true delegates for the Gentoo > > community. The developers, as well as managers, need to ensure that this > > stays true through normal managerial election. > > > > 4. Clear meeting procedure > > I encourage all developers and managers to review Robert's Book of Rules, > > as it provides invaluable information on proactive meeting procedure. > > > > By creating this document, I hope to help fix the problems that I see with > > Gentoo Linux. I believe that positive, intellectual conversation can lead > > us to the light at the end of the tunnel. I encourage you all to > > participate in this discussion, but please restrain from anger, lashing > > out, etc. > > > > Kind regards, > > //zhen > > -- > > Brett I. Holcomb > AKA Grunt <>< > > -- > gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list