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
So my response to this post is basically that we don't have enough people interested in running the Foundation. The Foundation originally had 9 board seats, then 7, then 5. The 5 are mostly filled with veterans (robin: joined 2003, me: joined 2006, prometheanfire: joined 2011) who don't want these positions but feel they need to be filled by people who will actually fulfill these duties. If the Foundation "needs to be strengthened" then we need candidates actually willing to do these jobs well. In the past election robin and I both resigned in an attempt to make space on the board for new members. We had 1 additional person run and all of the incumbents were re-elected to the board. This is a bad thing! The current board doesn't want to run the Foundation, we tried to recruit new board members and basically got 1 recruit, and the Foundation didn't elect them to the board!
The minimum board size in New Mexico is 3; so technically its possible to drop two seats and run a board that is [b-man, alicef, mgorny] and robin and I and prometheanfire can all resign. But in the end I think we will face similar problems; there just are not enough humans left who care to do this job. Strengthening the Foundation means finding humans who are willing to do this long term and most people are not. The people who want the umbrella are not "seeking power" (I want the umbrella and I'm the board president!) we want it because we think the umbrella will do at worst, the same job we have done and at best, do a better job.
-A