[gentoo-nfp] Council=CTO or Executive Board? [was: Re: Re: Re: Foundation reinstated]

[gentoo-nfp] Council=CTO or Executive Board? [was: Re: Re: Re: Foundation reinstated]

[Steve Long]

William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:

> On Mon, 2008-05-19 at 21:13 +0100, Steve Long wrote:
>>
>> Well I'd argue Council is Executive body since the main work of the
>> organisation is the technology (with perhaps infra as CTO) but that's an
>> aside.
> 
> Infra would never qualify as CTO. But would fall under the Council's
> sphere as they do now. Short of for funding requests, which the council
> doesn't oversee. Infra would be CIO if anything.
> 
> Just for reference
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_technical_officer
>
OK so infra wouldn't be CTO.
 
> The only diff here, being our CTO is a council or body. We could suggest
> to the council, they appoint a lead. But that's really up to them. I
> have no problem with the CTO as it applies to getting being a group
> comprised of several. Versus a single person.
>
Yeah but I disagree that the Council is limited to CTO, since the whole pupose 
of Gentoo is to develop software. I'd argue the Trustees are a Supervisory 
Board, and the Council an Executive Board within the two-tier model.

The portage team strike me more as the CTO in that setup though I admit your 
knowledge of these titles outweighs mine ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervisory_board
-- 
gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Council=CTO or Executive Board? [was: Re: Re: Re: Foundation reinstated]

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3134 bytes --]

On Mon, 2008-05-19 at 21:36 +0100, Steve Long wrote:
>
> Yeah but I disagree that the Council is limited to CTO, since the whole pupose 
> of Gentoo is to develop software. I'd argue the Trustees are a Supervisory 
> Board, and the Council an Executive Board within the two-tier model.

CTO is an executive position and title. Given full control over R&D,
technology, technical direction, etc.

But the council is not over the foundation wrt to hierarchy. It's
supposed to be a subsidiary board. For example, Council dictates to
infra. But infra lacks what they need to make council happy. Decision to
approve/fund, lies with foundation. So who's the top? ( not meant in
terms of power )

Something happens technically and Gentoo is sued. Does council then step
in and represent Gentoo. No the foundation does, and take full blame and
responsibility for councils actions or etc.

In a case like the present, where the council is to be replaced per some
policy. There is no entity over the council to see that through. Because
of our current structure. Nor are there any checks or balances.

More to the point that this hurts Gentoo technically. While companies
like Redhat can partner with say Intel. Making sure their stuff is
certified on Intel hardware. There would need to be liaisons if that was
to happen for Gentoo.

Like say the council says we want to support Intel's newest yet to be
released chipset. They mention that to the board/officers. Whom then in
turn contact Intel and facilitate a vendor relationship. Which is then
handed back to the council, to see through technically.

Again normal organization like you would see in any normal business
entity. Which the Gentoo Foundation is a business entity, so should have
some structure to reflect that. Given how chaotic at times our existing
structure is, or lack there of. I can see it making a huge difference in
the long run.

> The portage team strike me more as the CTO in that setup though I admit your 
> knowledge of these titles outweighs mine ;)

What does the portage team have to do wrt to R&D, or technical direction
of Gentoo as a whole? Portage is just one piece of the pie, that the
council oversees, decides the recipe, and bakes. Thus CTO, there is no
one beyond the CTO on technical matters. They are the top, and they
report in layman's to the CEO/Officers, and board at times if they are
split. For decisions that might involve them or to simply keep them
informed or in the loop.

Put it like this, Council answers to devs. Foundation answers to
community. At some point the council should answer to the Foundation as
well. Otherwise the community has no voice, only developers.

Although the Foundation, board/officers, will never dictate to the
council/CTO on technical matters. At best only suggest, based on the
will of the community, vendors, or etc. What the council does from
there, is up to them. As it is now. Because after all they know what is
best technically, and that's their call to make in the end.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.
amd64/Java/Trustees
Gentoo Foundation


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Council=CTO or Executive Board? [was: Re: Re: Re: Foundation reinstated]

[Richard Freeman]

William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> 
> Put it like this, Council answers to devs. Foundation answers to
> community. At some point the council should answer to the Foundation as
> well. Otherwise the community has no voice, only developers.
> 

I think we need to be careful here.  I wouldn't say that the Foundation 
answers to the community or represents the community.  Rather, I'd say 
that the Foundation serves the community.  The community is our mission 
- not our source of authority.

The reason this concerns me is that we really need to avoid an 
us-against-them mentality.  The devs are all volunteers and we can't 
really afford to have those who aren't volunteering perceived as issuing 
orders to those who are volunteering.  I think the role of the 
Foundation is to inspire the devs to do what is right - not to order 
them to do so.  I think most devs have respect for the effort the 
trustees are putting into getting the Foundation running and what it 
stands for.  As a result, I think that the Foundation will be heard when 
it speaks, at least more so than a bunch of end-users who are perceived 
as always asking for more but never giving back.  (I use the word 
"perceived" as I know the reality is more complex.)

> Although the Foundation, board/officers, will never dictate to the
> council/CTO on technical matters. At best only suggest, based on the
> will of the community, vendors, or etc. What the council does from
> there, is up to them. As it is now. Because after all they know what is
> best technically, and that's their call to make in the end.
> 

++

I couldn't have said this better.  There have been those who have 
recently been looking towards the trustees to essentially make the devs 
fall into line, and I think that what you've said emphasizes the balance 
and care required to make the distro a success.
-- 
gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Council=CTO or Executive Board? [was: Re: Re: Re: Foundation reinstated]

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3250 bytes --]

On Mon, 2008-05-19 at 19:55 -0400, Richard Freeman wrote:
> William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> > 
> > Put it like this, Council answers to devs. Foundation answers to
> > community. At some point the council should answer to the Foundation as
> > well. Otherwise the community has no voice, only developers.
> > 
> 
> I think we need to be careful here.  I wouldn't say that the Foundation 
> answers to the community or represents the community.  Rather, I'd say 
> that the Foundation serves the community.  The community is our mission 
> - not our source of authority.

It's a little of both. Less we forget the community are a couple of
things, users, sponsors, donors, etc. Most all devs start out as users,
so answering to the community and being accountable there is important.
But granted only part of the mission, not the entire mission.

> The reason this concerns me is that we really need to avoid an 
> us-against-them mentality.

There is none of that. No political parties etc. Just the one Gentoo :)
Dev's are part of the community. Just in a form, that they can remain a
member of the foundation long after they are no longer a dev if they so
choose. Depending on how the bylaws are updated and if there is a term
limit put there.

>   The devs are all volunteers and we can't 
> really afford to have those who aren't volunteering perceived as issuing 
> orders to those who are volunteering.

Delegation and asking people to do things as part of structure is
normal. Ever help out at a food kitchen? Ever or other types of
volunteering? Usually there is someone directing the action. I won't go
so far as to say boss, but they are calling the shots and delegating.

>   I think the role of the 
> Foundation is to inspire the devs to do what is right - not to order 
> them to do so.  I think most devs have respect for the effort the 
> trustees are putting into getting the Foundation running and what it 
> stands for.

Gentoo is not 100% the developer base. I was a user before I was a
developer, and my history as user is still longer than my history as a
developer. If/when I retire, unless there is something better than
Gentoo. I will still run it, and be a member of the community.

>   As a result, I think that the Foundation will be heard when 
> it speaks, at least more so than a bunch of end-users who are perceived 
> as always asking for more but never giving back.  (I use the word 
> "perceived" as I know the reality is more complex.)

The foundation was essentially supposed to do allot of things for Gentoo
it never has. So it will be heard, seen, and have an influence unlike
before.

> I couldn't have said this better.  There have been those who have 
> recently been looking towards the trustees to essentially make the devs 
> fall into line, and I think that what you've said emphasizes the balance 
> and care required to make the distro a success.

All things require a balance. Thus creating a better hierarchy with
checks and balances. So that all are represented in an equal and fair
manner. All can be heard, have influence, etc. Gentoo can be all it can
be :)

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.
amd64/Java/Trustees
Gentoo Foundation


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]