From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E68E138334 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2019 20:35:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B79CCE09F7; Fri, 6 Sep 2019 20:35:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-io1-xd42.google.com (mail-io1-xd42.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d42]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C7B3E09F7 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2019 20:35:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io1-xd42.google.com with SMTP id j4so15694165iog.11 for ; Fri, 06 Sep 2019 13:35:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=message-id:subject:from:to:date:in-reply-to:references:user-agent :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=6w+vwDRttI2r4fEWdaHQjVuYkzuv0tB199mb6LzMUV4=; b=leY/tQ6nToRRbot98ZfopTDSbUbWEIO2eS0XjH5kk54Fxy0qtNt/kAQaWCdOfGqfT8 BqMnM2ZPUyurB0E3vaIrMRufwShOyaKmRTYSezoWbXfNdTsMn484ddCQtUD6WyyuhadK tspaw2GL13GlQnUhHVokaGIt1UNblhp1l+jynQqD6gE+xs2FicvVdR6rXgPrczU5FLfI q0x60f+rwz2uCiEuN0PsiBHzno+E3fSBdXbiHwK8nkNuIYWQa0VSmUgHKen8A+Nddr3P XPmxn1J2hPOUI9yX+b8SNm+ziwEzRYpOI55eprG+vvg0WpbDun7v3k9Mj+pvnf1ngI8w 6dsQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:date:in-reply-to :references:user-agent:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=6w+vwDRttI2r4fEWdaHQjVuYkzuv0tB199mb6LzMUV4=; b=ilCXWewTc/JXnpZeiTSVIsEu4Iev1s5wgeyuT37t4IyC341T+SLXCMlEY2fEUfvq2i hX0GgsyyPrYF67+mlybgPMcaxNCLehX7jFCrKKHWEb8ppX+00DjmbNaHwteB+g4pCl5i Er+NwdaAWbriM4zzyAxpt5j/XfgmOShysTa3b2cOlKTmwmdSbZOlyc1ueTl//roZRI96 JJwADQWP68vk/0H2PIpTCivhsv+NCbSTXvD7WG69C3dzAS+2VrcAlqsOCIOZtkMOvCRF EhUh9V2DwLa2W2H3GMO1m4nx4x77WicWp9kEA3ljaFv4QVvjkDH7ARzGqpwaMAtF92Bi 0vTA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVwl7o7IPTar19chPd+nJ72inopPv/i6USB2JRglPitESWnqCau v1AVgjCnZVethLmNHYX6u7yQCjc7HzU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxIPz07QJ2aEDhRCjukIF2mqbrZgNsvWc7tzw7G4TuesuOuGKu8ekQtckL9c0uDTpVBFg4I9g== X-Received: by 2002:a6b:7a07:: with SMTP id h7mr12393627iom.57.1567802127554; Fri, 06 Sep 2019 13:35:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.199] ([8.37.11.100]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k66sm10639769iof.25.2019.09.06.13.35.26 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 06 Sep 2019 13:35:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <0f27513d3f0e3f9fbdfc8818f0def9b60a56f516.camel@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [gentoo-nfp] [RFC] Alternative methods for determining 'interest in Foundation affairs' From: Brad Teaford Cowan To: gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2019 16:35:24 -0400 In-Reply-To: <52090ee2-28ee-8a98-b2ca-53433156b7fb@veremit.xyz> References: <52090ee2-28ee-8a98-b2ca-53433156b7fb@veremit.xyz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.32.3 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: ab69961e-aca6-45da-b32e-99f49e48050f X-Archives-Hash: 0ab4a59e3eab92b69a6f0a55d193a3a6 On Fri, 2019-09-06 at 17:48 +0100, Michael Everitt wrote: > On 06/09/19 15:36, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 06:51:00PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 6:42 PM Robin H. Johnson < > > > robbat2@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 01:45:25PM -0700, Alec Warner wrote: > > > > > > 3. It is really meaningless. Casting a vote does not > > > > > > really indicate > > > > > > any interest in GF. It only indicates that someone has > > > > > > done the minimal > > > > > > effort to avoid being kicked. There is no reason to > > > > > > conflate the two. > > > > > I'm certainly interested in other avenues of interest, but I > > > > > don't see very > > > > > many in this thread other than "AGM attendance" and "asking > > > > > people if they > > > > > are interested[0]" > > > > - Does involvement on mailing lists count? > > > > - What other ways outside development might somebody be > > > > involved in > > > > Gentoo? Not everybody is a developer, let alone an ebuild > > > > developer. > > > > What if we wound up with PR people who weren't devs at all, > > > > but loved > > > > to talk about Gentoo? > > > Gentoo developers do not have to have commit access. If somebody > > > is > > > doing significant PR work for Gentoo then they should be made a > > > developer. Developers do not need to pass the ebuild quiz. > > I meant "developer" as the generic "one who develops software". > > Ebuilds are not the only code-like activity, there's multiple other > > software packages that Gentoo relies on: openrc, netifrc, > > genkernel, > > catalyst, eselect are some of them. > > They may have commit access to those packages, and not to ebuilds. > > > > I need to distinguish between: > > - ebuild coding contribution > > - non-ebuild-coding contribution > > - non-coding contribution > > > > > Anybody with an @g.o email address is a developer. > > > > > > We used to use the term "staff" but anybody who used to be > > > considered > > > "staff" is now considered a "developer." > > I stated when the switch away from "staff" was done, that I felt we > > were > > doing ourselves a dis-service by not picking a better word than > > "developer" - something that includes all of the contributions > > above, > > without implying specific technical skills. "Contributor" was down- > > voted > > at the time. > > > Reading (somewhat extensively) between the lines, there is a subtle > move > for those developing code and ebuilds to "take over" control and > management > of the distribution (cf. electorate of 'council'). Whether this is > something that is (1) really happening or (2) desirable, I shall > leave as > an exercise for the reader; but I thought was probably worth > highlighting. > > > As a long time former dev, who went through the rough times that necessitated the formation of the foundation, I felt I needed to respond to these posts. First of all, the foundation was formed in defense of the exact situation that Gentoo is facing now, as a control buffer keeping certain developers from literally taking over every aspect of the distro for their own gain. Whether that gain be money, power, or posturing for a job at Red Hat et al. The foundation has systemically been weakened, preening membership by any means possible. Eventually we will be left with just those developers seeking these gains ie. umbrella. This directly puts Gentoo right back in harms way, the original position it was pre-foundation. I lost my membership after missing a couple votes I assume, even though I had thought I was assured a lifetime seat being an original member. I know there are lots of other ex-developers out there who still love Gentoo at heart and deserve their right to protect its direction and IP from these threats from within. I personally think the foundation should be stengthened and more a separation from developer to foundation member. It's almost a conflict of interest or just asking for corruption to be in control of the foundation and the council. Anyway, now I'm rambling, so in closing, No changes unless they are to add and or strengthen foundation and not weaken it further. THANKS