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 51882138334 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2019 23:17:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6FDCFE093D; Fri, 6 Sep 2019 23:17:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-io1-xd2b.google.com (mail-io1-xd2b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2b]) (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 114CDE093D for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2019 23:17:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io1-xd2b.google.com with SMTP id d25so16545430iob.6 for ; Fri, 06 Sep 2019 16:17:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gentoo-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=LwYtli0K+QF9Rwa2Mln1RVLMpVmWESWcM0YnPJMc4Qc=; b=RXbKOw+LlSz+vkVXDdbBcuhwN0k/U9+oPMwTKjKZV1gMQpnRgtCbvBlKuKeX4bJlQO ebRt4/gd81W+PHgAZZuAu4yedOJsODq1YaCgIWTkG/p5nTgXJC6A2BfRgYSbiSuD+VEQ WYUo2I+SIo1YjZpN3VBMtdJVtEqSEc9RjFFJgJ/5/1y7ZfRuzUOHQQw3ultj0AAjvL3R II6x077Qg1jFufjlOdpin85VtgIBC60iYgkbdFmHAWlx+R8vT3QjZuvOOZM6H7zPxg/o xreywK0d0S2u9YuzpJlYFY/aFCP0L1KkJEKMBjPXHV9AcATYStSmJQnurFpDWgmJvw9o Eq2A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=LwYtli0K+QF9Rwa2Mln1RVLMpVmWESWcM0YnPJMc4Qc=; b=Y6UP7UZTw9yN30CJkCvWAvQ6oHEfLihpda+6GZPtTINl7RaoZUmWp54Vq+x9DktFsX yzDJ7aAldPe5q5NTr3bsDhHZ992IY8ZdlL+SVBC17EtT6VfSlyXG8pUOxm4uONpEB/cd oZxHeCSdS+s+NITB0sSM5skdxOYEip42ZwaKirXViC83SjPSAoyq8NuqrpXb1aGtJ5wy ycKxIxkySeog7v+n14R7tgh3mgjjBVW0VNcaUFTTXt6Vxi0xc+yiF4WQlxrzT2d4bXip ZReolZQCiLFSWqWV0cuynTrcuSEkt14yeUw9UvjuOAEPTTqHM8fRTrQPZza6gSjyO1Yu Naqw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUOMqb3p6f661YKA7nxx7SwqKSAftEGx+1UH3bo7zeq6dspBxrO 7jXVzBPAyw29u04JCT1/LeIGJox+YKv5it9lM9xtPvL7mkE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzGrbfnfh9fwuri5XRd1ooEoDpGKcv2H0auB4VID3eKcgyRkAUhgH1Amnl0e8neSCf6AO//36I4jRQNMyWpefc= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6638:a12:: with SMTP id 18mr9400452jan.123.1567811824482; Fri, 06 Sep 2019 16:17:04 -0700 (PDT) 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 References: <52090ee2-28ee-8a98-b2ca-53433156b7fb@veremit.xyz> <0f27513d3f0e3f9fbdfc8818f0def9b60a56f516.camel@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <0f27513d3f0e3f9fbdfc8818f0def9b60a56f516.camel@gmail.com> From: Alec Warner Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2019 16:16:53 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-nfp] [RFC] Alternative methods for determining 'interest in Foundation affairs' To: gentoo-nfp Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000dfb2850591eaa278" X-Archives-Salt: 080d61e2-4807-47fa-aa06-df373726c175 X-Archives-Hash: 17ff73eff955c51d18c292f30c98a30d --000000000000dfb2850591eaa278 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 1:35 PM Brad Teaford Cowan wrote: > 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 --000000000000dfb2850591eaa278 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 1:35 PM Brad Teafo= rd Cowan <bradly.cowan@gmail.c= om> wrote:
On Fri, 2019-09-06 at 17:48 +0100, Michael Eve= ritt 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 <
> > > robb= at2@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 01:45:25PM -0700, Alec Warner w= rote:
> > > > > > 3. It is really meaningless.=C2=A0 Casting a = vote does not
> > > > > > really indicate
> > > > > > any interest in GF.=C2=A0 It only indicates t= hat someone has
> > > > > > done the minimal
> > > > > > effort to avoid being kicked.=C2=A0 There is = no reason to
> > > > > > conflate the two.
> > > > > I'm certainly interested in other avenues of i= nterest, but I
> > > > > don't see very
> > > > > many in this thread other than "AGM attendanc= e" and "asking
> > > > > people if they
> > > > > are interested[0]"
> > > > - Does involvement on mailing lists count?
> > > > - What other ways outside development might somebody be=
> > > > involved in
> > > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0Gentoo? Not everybody is a developer, let a= lone an ebuild
> > > > developer.
> > > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0What if we wound up with PR people who were= n't devs at all,
> > > > but loved
> > > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0to talk about Gentoo?
> > > Gentoo developers do not have to have commit access.=C2=A0 I= f somebody
> > > is
> > > doing significant PR work for Gentoo then they should be mad= e a
> > > developer.=C2=A0 Developers do not need to pass the ebuild q= uiz.
> > I meant "developer" as the generic "one who develo= ps 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 us= ed to be
> > > considered
> > > "staff" is now considered a "developer."=
> > I stated when the switch away from "staff" was done, th= at I felt we
> > were
> > doing ourselves a dis-service by not picking a better word than > > "developer" - something that includes all of the contri= butions
> > above,
> > without implying specific technical skills. "Contributor&quo= t; 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 thi= s 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.
>
>
>
=C2=A0 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.=C2=A0 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.=C2=A0 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.

=C2=A0 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<= br> add and or strengthen foundation and not weaken it further. THANKS



So my response to this post is basical= ly that we don't have enough people interested in running the Foundatio= n. The Foundation originally had 9 board seats, then 7, then 5. The 5 are m= ostly filled with veterans (robin: joined 2003, me: joined 2006, promethean= fire: 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 Foundat= ion "needs to be strengthened" then we need candidates actually w= illing to do these jobs well. In the past election robin and I both resigne= d in an attempt to make space on the board for new members. We had 1 additi= onal person run and all of the incumbents were re-elected to the board. Thi= s 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!

Th= e minimum board size in New Mexico is 3; so technically its possible to dro= p 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 sim= ilar problems; there just are not enough humans left who care to do this jo= b. 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 ar= e 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

=C2=A0
--000000000000dfb2850591eaa278--