From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7026 invoked by uid 1002); 16 Jul 2003 01:38:57 -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 804 invoked from network); 16 Jul 2003 01:38:57 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: "Brett I. Holcomb" Reply-To: brettholcomb@charter.net Organization: Holcomb & Associates To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:44:36 -0400 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.1] References: <20030714214621.33b75fbd.zhen@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <20030714214621.33b75fbd.zhen@gentoo.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo part II. X-Archives-Salt: 917fd471-7597-4879-a19e-be2626b9140a X-Archives-Hash: dbeb5bd117ccaf149732214c67ccbe93 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