[gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Fabian Groffen]

After the new council was setup, a "introductionary" meeting was held to
get the new council members going a bit.  Since this meeting replaced an
ordinary meeting, it is considered a waste of time by some [1].

Roy Bamford suggested to change the scheme to
  "Two year terms and elections every year for half the seats."

This requires an update to GLEP39 [2] on all points that reference the
one year period of the council.  It requires addition of the two
overlapping terms, and dealing with the "less than 50% attendance"
point.

Voting for this point makes little to no sense for as long as the
implications to GLEP39 and possibly other organisational issues aren't
clear.  Hence, at this stage, brief discussion by the council in the
next meeting can only make it clear if the current council has the
intention to supports a change like this or not.

Please discuss how to implement a change like this.  Starting point
would be to see what changes would be necessary to GLEP39.  Also,
whether the term would have to become 2 year, or the votings be twice a
year.  All contributions, objections or alternative ideas welcome.


[1] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/msg_57311d9d940106bc9b4c039707e0c953.xml
[2] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0039.html

-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Andreas K. Huettel]

On Montag 01 August 2011 20:47:51 Fabian Groffen wrote:
> After the new council was setup, a "introductionary" meeting was held to
> get the new council members going a bit.  Since this meeting replaced an
> ordinary meeting, it is considered a waste of time by some [1].

How about just having the introductory meeting
* ~immediately after the election
* in addition to the usual schedule
?!

I'd say we could spare ourselves a lot of useless discussion and rewriting of 
rules that way...

Just my 2ct :)

-- 

Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer 
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 01-08-2011 18:47, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> After the new council was setup, a "introductionary" meeting was held
> to get the new council members going a bit.  Since this meeting
> replaced an ordinary meeting, it is considered a waste of time by
> some [1].
> 
> Roy Bamford suggested to change the scheme to "Two year terms and
> elections every year for half the seats."
> 
> This requires an update to GLEP39 [2] on all points that reference
> the one year period of the council.  It requires addition of the two 
> overlapping terms, and dealing with the "less than 50% attendance" 
> point.
> 
> Voting for this point makes little to no sense for as long as the 
> implications to GLEP39 and possibly other organisational issues
> aren't clear.  Hence, at this stage, brief discussion by the council
> in the next meeting can only make it clear if the current council has
> the intention to supports a change like this or not.

As I've expressed already a few times, I strongly disagree with the
Council being able to change the rules that govern it. In my view, this
topic belongs to a reform of GLEP39.

Also, as documented on the last meeting's summary[1], the current
council voted on not being able to update GLEP39:

Donnie asked for a clarification by the council members on whether they
think a global dev vote is required to update GLEP39 or not. The
council voted 5 yes and 1 no that the council can't change GLEP39 as it
requires a full developer vote.

[1] -
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20110715-summary.txt

> Please discuss how to implement a change like this.  Starting point 
> would be to see what changes would be necessary to GLEP39.  Also, 
> whether the term would have to become 2 year, or the votings be twice
> a year.  All contributions, objections or alternative ideas welcome.

- From my experience in the council, I think 2 year terms are too long.
Having overlapping terms might work or not, I'd say it depends on who is
elected to the council - although they can help in the transition.
One thing I dislike in Roy's proposal is moving from 7 to 5 council
members. I think the current number is a good balance between a cohesive
body and a representative body and that a council with only 5 members is
getting too thin.

> [1]
> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/msg_57311d9d940106bc9b4c039707e0c953.xml
>
> 
[2] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0039.html

- -- 
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=B1jQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Fabian Groffen]

On 01-08-2011 23:24:56 +0000, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> As I've expressed already a few times, I strongly disagree with the
> Council being able to change the rules that govern it. In my view, this
> topic belongs to a reform of GLEP39.
> 
> Also, as documented on the last meeting's summary[1], the current
> council voted on not being able to update GLEP39:
> 
> Donnie asked for a clarification by the council members on whether they
> think a global dev vote is required to update GLEP39 or not. The
> council voted 5 yes and 1 no that the council can't change GLEP39 as it
> requires a full developer vote.
> 
> [1] -
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20110715-summary.txt

Right, which means to me that if the council agrees on a certain change
to GLEP39, it has to organise a full developer vote with all the
supporting material for the change.

> > Please discuss how to implement a change like this.  Starting point 
> > would be to see what changes would be necessary to GLEP39.  Also, 
> > whether the term would have to become 2 year, or the votings be twice
> > a year.  All contributions, objections or alternative ideas welcome.
> 
> - From my experience in the council, I think 2 year terms are too long.
> Having overlapping terms might work or not, I'd say it depends on who is
> elected to the council - although they can help in the transition.
> One thing I dislike in Roy's proposal is moving from 7 to 5 council
> members. I think the current number is a good balance between a cohesive
> body and a representative body and that a council with only 5 members is
> getting too thin.

I think 7 is ok as well.  Probably a good document on how things work,
and what is expected from council members would get new members started
quickly without too much problems as well.


-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1403 bytes --]

On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 08:36:33AM +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 01-08-2011 23:24:56 +0000, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> > As I've expressed already a few times, I strongly disagree with the
> > Council being able to change the rules that govern it. In my view, this
> > topic belongs to a reform of GLEP39.
> > 
> > Also, as documented on the last meeting's summary[1], the current
> > council voted on not being able to update GLEP39:
> > 
> > Donnie asked for a clarification by the council members on whether they
> > think a global dev vote is required to update GLEP39 or not. The
> > council voted 5 yes and 1 no that the council can't change GLEP39 as it
> > requires a full developer vote.
> > 
> > [1] -
> > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20110715-summary.txt
> 
> Right, which means to me that if the council agrees on a certain change
> to GLEP39, it has to organise a full developer vote with all the
> supporting material for the change.

 But, you are saying that the council has to approve changes for glep
 39 before they can come to a vote. This would mean that say a majority
 of developers doesn't like something in glep 39, but the council
 doesn't approve the change. That change will never come to a vote. In
 other words, the council has control of the rules that govern it. Is
 that what you are intending?

William


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Rich Freeman]

On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 11:42 AM, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
>  But, you are saying that the council has to approve changes for glep
>  39 before they can come to a vote. This would mean that say a majority
>  of developers doesn't like something in glep 39, but the council
>  doesn't approve the change. That change will never come to a vote. In
>  other words, the council has control of the rules that govern it. Is
>  that what you are intending?
>

Arguably the current rules are pretty ambiguous for the council.  The
rules are fairly explicit for the Foundation, where there are rules
about having membership-convened meetings/etc.

However, maybe we should avoid having a huge debate over this issue.
We can't even get a huge percentage of the developer base to vote in
an election in the first place.  I'm not too concerned about how we'll
handle the first organized recall.

My recommendation would be to let the council take the leadership on
this and organize a vote if necessary.  If we start seeing threads
with 85 unique developer participants chanting "down with the council"
then we can worry about how we bypass them.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Roy Bamford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2073 bytes --]

On 2011.08.02 16:49, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 11:42 AM, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> >  But, you are saying that the council has to approve changes for
> glep
> >  39 before they can come to a vote. This would mean that say a
> majority
> >  of developers doesn't like something in glep 39, but the council
> >  doesn't approve the change. That change will never come to a vote.
> In
> >  other words, the council has control of the rules that govern it.
> Is
> >  that what you are intending?
> >
> 
> Arguably the current rules are pretty ambiguous for the council.  The
> rules are fairly explicit for the Foundation, where there are rules
> about having membership-convened meetings/etc.
> 
[snip]
> 
> Rich
> 
Team,

The trustees are legally accountable and responsible for the operation 
of the Gentoo Foundation Inc.  Some things in the bylaws are there to 
comply with statutes.

The Gentoo council has no legal standing whatsoever, which I have 
already said (at FOSEDEM) makes me a little nervous as a trustee, since 
the council makes decisions on behalf of Gentoo that the Foundation 
would be held both accountable and responsible for. There have been no 
issues with that, yet.

Maybe its time to reorganise Gentoo along standard corporate lines 
again, as it was before drobbins left. If we go in that direction, the 
council becomes a technical committee that is part of the Foundation. 
GLEP39 is no longer needed and the Foundation bylaws are amended to 
reflect the new structure.

Such a major change would probably need to be put to a vote of 
Foundation members as we would be changing the make up of what is 
legally a company. (Members are equivelent to share/stock holders) 
Note: Foundation members and Gentoo developers are two intersecting 
sets.

This gives rise to all sorts of interesting questions, opportunities 
possibilities and challenges. Please discuss.

-- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) a member of
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
trustees

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Rich Freeman]

On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@gentoo.org> wrote:
> The Gentoo council has no legal standing whatsoever, which I have
> already said (at FOSEDEM) makes me a little nervous as a trustee, since
> the council makes decisions on behalf of Gentoo that the Foundation
> would be held both accountable and responsible for. There have been no
> issues with that, yet.
>
> Maybe its time to reorganise Gentoo along standard corporate lines
> again, as it was before drobbins left. If we go in that direction, the
> council becomes a technical committee that is part of the Foundation.
> GLEP39 is no longer needed and the Foundation bylaws are amended to
> reflect the new structure.
>

So, while that is something that has been talked about, and which I
tend to support, I think that it is a BIG change for Gentoo.  Even if
the intent is to keep the change small from a practical standpoint.

I definitely would prefer to avoid updating the Foundation bylaws, at
least right now.  My concern is that we're still cleaning up the past
in terms of tax filings, legal status, etc.  I think that good
progress is being made, but I'm afraid that trying to reorganize the
distro is going to eat up a lot of effort.

Even if this weren't an issue I'd probably still avoid
over-formalizing the council - since splitting off the trustees was
done precisely to avoid that in the first place.  The foundation needs
to operate in a fairly formal way for legal reasons.  We already have
difficulty meeting the required level of formality within our current
scope of responsibility.  I'd be reluctant to apply that same level of
rigor to the council.

That said, if an issue does legally threaten Gentoo then it is the
duty of the trustees to step in if it isn't sorted out quickly.  I
think that most would already support this, and unless somebody spots
something in the bylaws that is unclear I think legally the trustees
already have the authority to do so.  In the past I think councils
have done a good job steering clear of legal landmines, and I do think
that if the trustees were to raise a legal concern with a proposed
action they would probably respect our role without any need for
coercion.  Maybe clarifying this in GLEP 39 might not hurt, but I
wouldn't send the document out for another vote with only that change.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 08/02/2011 07:24 PM, Roy Bamford wrote:
> Team,
> 
> The trustees are legally accountable and responsible for the
> operation of the Gentoo Foundation Inc.  Some things in the bylaws
> are there to comply with statutes.
> 
> The Gentoo council has no legal standing whatsoever, which I have 
> already said (at FOSEDEM) makes me a little nervous as a trustee,
> since the council makes decisions on behalf of Gentoo that the
> Foundation would be held both accountable and responsible for. There
> have been no issues with that, yet.

The council is supposed to discuss and decides on technical or project
wise issues. How can a technical decision violate laws etc? I can't
think on top of my head an issue that would expose Foundation. Can you
please provide an example?

> 
> Maybe its time to reorganise Gentoo along standard corporate lines 
> again, as it was before drobbins left. If we go in that direction,
> the council becomes a technical committee that is part of the
> Foundation. GLEP39 is no longer needed and the Foundation bylaws are
> amended to reflect the new structure.

If we go in that direction, I see no point in having the Foundation and
the Council as two separate entities. In this case it would make much
more sense to merge them. I don't quite like the idea though.

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
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=QZRN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Roy Bamford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2724 bytes --]

On 2011.08.02 22:50, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 08/02/2011 07:24 PM, Roy Bamford wrote:
> > Team,
> >
> > The trustees are legally accountable and responsible for the
> > operation of the Gentoo Foundation Inc.  Some things in the bylaws
> > are there to comply with statutes.
> >
> > The Gentoo council has no legal standing whatsoever, which I have
> > already said (at FOSEDEM) makes me a little nervous as a trustee,
> > since the council makes decisions on behalf of Gentoo that the
> > Foundation would be held both accountable and responsible for. 
> There
> > have been no issues with that, yet.
> 
> The council is supposed to discuss and decides on technical or 
> project
> wise issues. How can a technical decision violate laws etc? I can't
> think on top of my head an issue that would expose Foundation. Can 
> you
> please provide an example?
Any decision that has copyright, licence, or patent implications could 
expose the Foundation. Although, I do agree with Rich0 that the two 
bodies have worked well together, so it has not been an issue.

> 
> >
> > Maybe its time to reorganise Gentoo along standard corporate lines
> > again, as it was before drobbins left. If we go in that direction,
> > the council becomes a technical committee that is part of the
> > Foundation. GLEP39 is no longer needed and the Foundation bylaws 
> are
> > amended to reflect the new structure.
> 
> If we go in that direction, I see no point in having the Foundation
> and
> the Council as two separate entities. In this case it would make much
> more sense to merge them. 

Division of responsibilities is important, in the business world, its 
essential, and the Foundation is first and foremost a business, even 
if its directors and officers are not paid. The Foundation does not 
get any special treatment from the state of New Mexico, nor the IRS and 
friends.

It would be unethical if the council could vote funds for a council 
devised project. Likewise, trustees need business administration skills 
rather than technical skills and should not determine the technical 
direction of Gentoo.

To enforce the division of responsibilities, the Foundation has a bylaw 
that prevents a trustee from concurrently serving on the council.

I'm suggesting that the informal interdependencies that are present 
between the council and the foundation be formalised along the lines of 
a standard corporation. 

> I don't quite like the idea though.
Would you care to expand on that?

> --
> Regards,
> Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
> 

-- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) a member of
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
trustees

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 08/02/2011 11:21 PM, Roy Bamford wrote:
> On 2011.08.02 22:50, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> On 08/02/2011 07:24 PM, Roy Bamford wrote:
>>> Team,
>>> 
>>> The trustees are legally accountable and responsible for the 
>>> operation of the Gentoo Foundation Inc.  Some things in the
>>> bylaws are there to comply with statutes.
>>> 
>>> The Gentoo council has no legal standing whatsoever, which I
>>> have already said (at FOSEDEM) makes me a little nervous as a
>>> trustee, since the council makes decisions on behalf of Gentoo
>>> that the Foundation would be held both accountable and
>>> responsible for.
>> There
>>> have been no issues with that, yet.
>> 
>> The council is supposed to discuss and decides on technical or 
>> project wise issues. How can a technical decision violate laws etc?
>> I can't think on top of my head an issue that would expose
>> Foundation. Can you please provide an example?
> Any decision that has copyright, licence, or patent implications
> could expose the Foundation. Although, I do agree with Rich0 that the
> two bodies have worked well together, so it has not been an issue.
> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Maybe its time to reorganise Gentoo along standard corporate
>>> lines again, as it was before drobbins left. If we go in that
>>> direction, the council becomes a technical committee that is part
>>> of the Foundation. GLEP39 is no longer needed and the Foundation
>>> bylaws
>> are
>>> amended to reflect the new structure.
>> 
>> If we go in that direction, I see no point in having the
>> Foundation and the Council as two separate entities. In this case
>> it would make much more sense to merge them.
> 
> Division of responsibilities is important, in the business world, its
>  essential, and the Foundation is first and foremost a business, even
>  if its directors and officers are not paid. The Foundation does not
>  get any special treatment from the state of New Mexico, nor the IRS
> and friends.
The Council and the Foundation already have different responsibilities.

> 
> It would be unethical if the council could vote funds for a council 
> devised project. Likewise, trustees need business administration
> skills rather than technical skills and should not determine the
> technical direction of Gentoo.
Agreed. But this is the kind of structure we have at the moment isn't it?
> 
> I'm suggesting that the informal interdependencies that are present 
> between the council and the foundation be formalised along the lines
> of a standard corporation.

This is the part that I don't understand. Could you please explain that
and/or provide a layout of the new organizational structure that you
propose?
> 
>> I don't quite like the idea though.
> Would you care to expand on that?
> 
Mainly because I fail to understand the changes you propose and because
I am quite happy with the way things are at the moment.

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
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=y+GD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Roy Bamford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4469 bytes --]

On 2011.08.02 23:37, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 08/02/2011 11:21 PM, Roy Bamford wrote:
> > On 2011.08.02 22:50, Markos Chandras wrote:
> >> On 08/02/2011 07:24 PM, Roy Bamford wrote:
[snip]
> >>>
> >>> Maybe its time to reorganise Gentoo along standard corporate
> >>> lines again, as it was before drobbins left. If we go in that
> >>> direction, the council becomes a technical committee that is part
> >>> of the Foundation. GLEP39 is no longer needed and the Foundation
> >>> bylaws are
> >>> amended to reflect the new structure.
> >>
> >> If we go in that direction, I see no point in having the
> >> Foundation and the Council as two separate entities. In this case
> >> it would make much more sense to merge them.
> >
> > Division of responsibilities is important, in the business world,
> > its essential, and the Foundation is first and foremost a business,
> > even if its directors and officers are not paid. The Foundation 
> > does not get any special treatment from the state of New Mexico, 
> > nor the IRS and friends.
> The Council and the Foundation already have different
> responsibilities.
> 
> >
> > It would be unethical if the council could vote funds for a council
> > devised project. Likewise, trustees need business administration
> > skills rather than technical skills and should not determine the
> > technical direction of Gentoo.
> Agreed. But this is the kind of structure we have at the moment isn't
> it?
Its the way it works at the moment but its not structure. GLEP39 sets 
the terms of reference for the council and the bylaws and corporate 
laws of New Mexico set the terms of reference for the Gentoo 
Foundation.

Where is the relationship between the two bodies documented?
It isn't.  The foundation was set up to inherit the property of Gentoo 
Technologies Inc., in 2004 when drobbins left Gentoo.
The council was set up some time later (2006?), when the Top Level 
Project Leads could no longer set the technical direction, thus Gentoo 
is unique in the corporate world having two entirely separate leading 
bodies.

> >
> > I'm suggesting that the informal interdependencies that are present
> > between the council and the foundation be formalised along the 
> > lines of a standard corporation.
> 
> This is the part that I don't understand. Could you please explain
> that and/or provide a layout of the new organizational structure that 
> you propose?
The following maps a Basic Corporate Structure onto Gentoo.

Basic Corporate Structure                | Gentoo Structure​
Ownership                                | Foundation
Board of Directors                       | Trustees
Management Team (CEO CFO COO)    	 | Foundation Officers [1] \
General Manager or CTO                   | Council [2]
Department Heads                         | Project Leads

[1] Foundation officers can be anyone capable of discharging their 
duties. They need not be Foundation members. They are 
Foundation employees. Indeed its good to keep the officers and 
directors separate, so the directors direct and the officers do the 
work. Officers do not get board member votes

[2] Its somewhat unusual to have a committee as a general manager but I 
don't see a single individual having the time to undertake a chief 
technical officer role in Gentoo. drobbins was the last one to try and 
it was more than he could manage, even full time plus his spare time.
The council also become Foundation Officers.

> >
> >> I don't quite like the idea though.
> > Would you care to expand on that?
> >
> Mainly because I fail to understand the changes you propose and
> because
> I am quite happy with the way things are at the moment.

Things work well at the moment because 
a) the individuals involved make things work
b) we have never hit any bad times

The clarity of a formal structure is needed for when things begin to go 
wrong, e.g. the Foundation loses its good standing ... then what?
What about in the months before the council was formed, should the 
Foundation have done something to restore technical leadership sooner ?

I don't see it making much difference to the way Gentoo operates during 
normal times, so you might not notice the change.

> 
> --
> Regards,
> Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
> 

-- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) a member of
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
trustees

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 600 bytes --]

On 23:21 Tue 02 Aug     , Roy Bamford wrote:
> It would be unethical if the council could vote funds for a council 
> devised project.

I disagree. I don't think it's unethical nor even unusual for me to fund 
my own decisions in a personal or corporate environment. It seems much 
more unethical to me that some "helicopter parents" can choose not to 
fund a decision; that's one way how we get so many screwups in our 
government, with unfunded decisions that cost money.

-- 
Thanks,
Donnie

Donnie Berkholz
Council Member / Sr. Developer
Gentoo Linux
Blog: http://dberkholz.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Roy Bamford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1327 bytes --]

On 2011.08.04 21:10, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 23:21 Tue 02 Aug     , Roy Bamford wrote:
> > It would be unethical if the council could vote funds for a council 
> > devised project.
> 
> I disagree. I don't think it's unethical nor even unusual for me to
> fund 
> my own decisions in a personal or corporate environment. It seems 
> much
> 
> more unethical to me that some "helicopter parents" can choose not to 
> fund a decision; that's one way how we get so many screwups in our 
> government, with unfunded decisions that cost money.
> 
> -- 
> Thanks,
> Donnie
> 
> Donnie Berkholz
> Council Member / Sr. Developer
> Gentoo Linux
> Blog: http://dberkholz.com
> 

I think we have to agree to disagree on this one. The corporate norm of 
checks and balances is to have applications for expenditure, be it for 
trivial sums or large capital items, to be signed off by someone/some 
group with no interest in the outcome, so they can make an objective 
decision.

e.g. I can sign off travel and expenses for others but not for myself.

There is usually a system of audits to ensure this division of 
responsibilities actually happens too.

I freely admit my experience is limited to the UK.

-- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) a member of
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
trustees

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1172 bytes --]

On 23:31 Thu 04 Aug     , Roy Bamford wrote:
> On 2011.08.04 21:10, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > I disagree. I don't think it's unethical nor even unusual for me to 
> > fund my own decisions in a personal or corporate environment. It 
> > seems much more unethical to me that some "helicopter parents" can 
> > choose not to fund a decision; that's one way how we get so many 
> > screwups in our government, with unfunded decisions that cost money.
> 
> I think we have to agree to disagree on this one. The corporate norm 
> of checks and balances is to have applications for expenditure, be it 
> for trivial sums or large capital items, to be signed off by 
> someone/some group with no interest in the outcome, so they can make 
> an objective decision.
> 
> e.g. I can sign off travel and expenses for others but not for myself.

At least in my experience, each division would receive its own budget 
with independent spending authority. This is subject to auditing but 
only in retrospect, not prior to the expense taking place.
 
-- 
Thanks,
Donnie

Donnie Berkholz
Council Member / Sr. Developer
Gentoo Linux
Blog: http://dberkholz.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Fabian Groffen]

On 05-08-2011 00:51:51 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > I think we have to agree to disagree on this one. The corporate norm 
> > of checks and balances is to have applications for expenditure, be it 
> > for trivial sums or large capital items, to be signed off by 
> > someone/some group with no interest in the outcome, so they can make 
> > an objective decision.
> > 
> > e.g. I can sign off travel and expenses for others but not for myself.
> 
> At least in my experience, each division would receive its own budget 
> with independent spending authority. This is subject to auditing but 
> only in retrospect, not prior to the expense taking place.

Do you suggest the Council should have money to spend?


-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 978 bytes --]

On 12:50 Fri 05 Aug     , Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 05-08-2011 00:51:51 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > > I think we have to agree to disagree on this one. The corporate norm 
> > > of checks and balances is to have applications for expenditure, be it 
> > > for trivial sums or large capital items, to be signed off by 
> > > someone/some group with no interest in the outcome, so they can make 
> > > an objective decision.
> > > 
> > > e.g. I can sign off travel and expenses for others but not for myself.
> > 
> > At least in my experience, each division would receive its own budget 
> > with independent spending authority. This is subject to auditing but 
> > only in retrospect, not prior to the expense taking place.
> 
> Do you suggest the Council should have money to spend?

No, we're just way out on a weird analogy limb here.

-- 
Thanks,
Donnie

Donnie Berkholz
Council Member / Sr. Developer
Gentoo Linux
Blog: http://dberkholz.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Roy Bamford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1355 bytes --]

On 2011.08.09 15:01, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 12:50 Fri 05 Aug     , Fabian Groffen wrote:
> > On 05-08-2011 00:51:51 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > > > I think we have to agree to disagree on this one. The corporate
> norm 
> > > > of checks and balances is to have applications for expenditure,
> be it 
> > > > for trivial sums or large capital items, to be signed off by 
> > > > someone/some group with no interest in the outcome, so they can
> make 
> > > > an objective decision.
> > > > 
> > > > e.g. I can sign off travel and expenses for others but not for
> myself.
> > > 
> > > At least in my experience, each division would receive its own
> budget 
> > > with independent spending authority. This is subject to auditing
> but 
> > > only in retrospect, not prior to the expense taking place.
> > 
> > Do you suggest the Council should have money to spend?
> 
> No, we're just way out on a weird analogy limb here.
> 

Well, as Gentoo the distro has no legal links to the Gentoo Foundation 
Inc., I suppose the distro as headed by the council could set up its 
own legal entity somewhere in the world, to raise funds ... :) 

Its the legal ties bit I would like to fix, which gets us back to where 
I started.

-- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) a member of
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
trustees

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Fabian Groffen]

> > Right, which means to me that if the council agrees on a certain change
> > to GLEP39, it has to organise a full developer vote with all the
> > supporting material for the change.
> 
>  But, you are saying that the council has to approve changes for glep
>  39 before they can come to a vote. This would mean that say a majority
>  of developers doesn't like something in glep 39, but the council
>  doesn't approve the change. That change will never come to a vote. In
>  other words, the council has control of the rules that govern it. Is
>  that what you are intending?

I think yes, if the council regarding GLEP39 thinks A, but the dev
population B, then it is unlikely the council will vote for B.  However,
the dev population should vote for other council members that do support
B for the next term in that case.

You have all rights of course to try and persuade the council members to
change their minds and vote for B.  Probably good argumentation will
help there.


-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 02-08-2011 16:15, Fabian Groffen wrote:
>>> Right, which means to me that if the council agrees on a certain
>>> change to GLEP39, it has to organise a full developer vote with
>>> all the supporting material for the change.
>> 
>> But, you are saying that the council has to approve changes for
>> glep 39 before they can come to a vote. This would mean that say a
>> majority of developers doesn't like something in glep 39, but the
>> council doesn't approve the change. That change will never come to
>> a vote. In other words, the council has control of the rules that
>> govern it. Is that what you are intending?
> 
> I think yes, if the council regarding GLEP39 thinks A, but the dev 
> population B, then it is unlikely the council will vote for B.
> However, the dev population should vote for other council members
> that do support B for the next term in that case.
> 
> You have all rights of course to try and persuade the council members
> to change their minds and vote for B.  Probably good argumentation
> will help there.

I strongly disagree on this since I support that any change to GLEP39
will require a global dev vote, which means that even if the council
starts a discussion and guides the process for GLEP39 reform, in the end
it will fall to the full developer community to approve it or not.
I do think that the council should have an active role in GLEP39 reform
and that it's natural for the council to "lead" on this process. If
we're able to get this moving forward, I would be open to having the
council nominate a person or committee to spearhead the process.

- -- 
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=LglL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Fabian Groffen]

On 03-08-2011 02:26:44 +0000, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> > I think yes, if the council regarding GLEP39 thinks A, but the dev 
> > population B, then it is unlikely the council will vote for B.
> > However, the dev population should vote for other council members
> > that do support B for the next term in that case.
> > 
> > You have all rights of course to try and persuade the council members
> > to change their minds and vote for B.  Probably good argumentation
> > will help there.
> 
> I strongly disagree on this since I support that any change to GLEP39
> will require a global dev vote, which means that even if the council
> starts a discussion and guides the process for GLEP39 reform, in the end
> it will fall to the full developer community to approve it or not.
> I do think that the council should have an active role in GLEP39 reform
> and that it's natural for the council to "lead" on this process. If
> we're able to get this moving forward, I would be open to having the
> council nominate a person or committee to spearhead the process.

I don't see how the both of us disagree here.


-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1274 bytes --]

On 18:15 Tue 02 Aug     , Fabian Groffen wrote:
> > > Right, which means to me that if the council agrees on a certain change
> > > to GLEP39, it has to organise a full developer vote with all the
> > > supporting material for the change.
> > 
> >  But, you are saying that the council has to approve changes for glep
> >  39 before they can come to a vote. This would mean that say a majority
> >  of developers doesn't like something in glep 39, but the council
> >  doesn't approve the change. That change will never come to a vote. In
> >  other words, the council has control of the rules that govern it. Is
> >  that what you are intending?
> 
> I think yes, if the council regarding GLEP39 thinks A, but the dev
> population B, then it is unlikely the council will vote for B.  However,
> the dev population should vote for other council members that do support
> B for the next term in that case.

I think the whole idea is rather absurd that the council could disagree 
with a change to GLEP 39 and thus prevent it from going to a 
developer-wide vote, even though they don't think they have the 
authority to change the GLEP.

-- 
Thanks,
Donnie

Donnie Berkholz
Council Member / Sr. Developer
Gentoo Linux
Blog: http://dberkholz.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Fabian Groffen]

On 04-08-2011 13:08:06 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 18:15 Tue 02 Aug     , Fabian Groffen wrote:
> > > > Right, which means to me that if the council agrees on a certain change
> > > > to GLEP39, it has to organise a full developer vote with all the
> > > > supporting material for the change.
> > > 
> > >  But, you are saying that the council has to approve changes for glep
> > >  39 before they can come to a vote. This would mean that say a majority
> > >  of developers doesn't like something in glep 39, but the council
> > >  doesn't approve the change. That change will never come to a vote. In
> > >  other words, the council has control of the rules that govern it. Is
> > >  that what you are intending?
> > 
> > I think yes, if the council regarding GLEP39 thinks A, but the dev
> > population B, then it is unlikely the council will vote for B.  However,
> > the dev population should vote for other council members that do support
> > B for the next term in that case.
> 
> I think the whole idea is rather absurd that the council could disagree 
> with a change to GLEP 39 and thus prevent it from going to a 
> developer-wide vote, even though they don't think they have the 
> authority to change the GLEP.

Let me try to put it different:

The assumption that the council has to vote for GLEP39, perhaps is
wrong.  Would it make more sense when the council would suggest the
changes for GLEP39 and have the dev community vote on acceptance?

Beforehand, the council then -- internally -- has to vote if they agree
on the changes being put forward to the dev community.  I think there
should be a majority vote among the council members before such proposal
is sent out for a dev vote.


-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2350 bytes --]

On 08:58 Fri 05 Aug     , Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 04-08-2011 13:08:06 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > On 18:15 Tue 02 Aug     , Fabian Groffen wrote:
> > > I think yes, if the council regarding GLEP39 thinks A, but the dev 
> > > population B, then it is unlikely the council will vote for B.  
> > > However, the dev population should vote for other council members 
> > > that do support B for the next term in that case.
> > 
> > I think the whole idea is rather absurd that the council could 
> > disagree with a change to GLEP 39 and thus prevent it from going to 
> > a developer-wide vote, even though they don't think they have the 
> > authority to change the GLEP.
> 
> Let me try to put it different:
> 
> The assumption that the council has to vote for GLEP39, perhaps is 
> wrong.  Would it make more sense when the council would suggest the 
> changes for GLEP39 and have the dev community vote on acceptance?
> 
> Beforehand, the council then -- internally -- has to vote if they 
> agree on the changes being put forward to the dev community.  I think 
> there should be a majority vote among the council members before such 
> proposal is sent out for a dev vote.

I still don't like it. I think that anyone should be able to submit 
things to a developer-wide vote if desired, regardless of whether a 
council majority supports it. I suppose maybe I would be OK with having 
at least one council "sponsor" for the vote, but I hate the idea of the 
council having a pre-vote veto on any idea they don't like that changes 
how they operate.

Let's say I propose an idea that 80% of the council likes but 80% of 
developers want. This doesn't seem unreasonable since I was very highly 
ranked in voting with a platform that involves totally changing our 
leadership structure, and yet the council insists it cannot change GLEP 
39. I would be pretty pissed if most of Gentoo wanted something but the 
"cabal" at the top didn't even let them make the choice.

I would be OK with the council having a nonbinding vote on the matter 
prior to an all-dev vote just so everybody knows where they stand, but I 
think the matter should go to a full vote regardless of the results.

--
Thanks,
Donnie

Donnie Berkholz
Council Member / Sr. Developer
Gentoo Linux
Blog: http://dberkholz.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Ulrich Mueller]

>>>>> On Fri, 5 Aug 2011, Donnie Berkholz wrote:

> On 08:58 Fri 05 Aug     , Fabian Groffen wrote:
>> Let me try to put it different:
>> 
>> The assumption that the council has to vote for GLEP39, perhaps is
>> wrong.  Would it make more sense when the council would suggest the
>> changes for GLEP39 and have the dev community vote on acceptance?
>> 
>> Beforehand, the council then -- internally -- has to vote if they
>> agree on the changes being put forward to the dev community.
>> I think there should be a majority vote among the council members
>> before such proposal is sent out for a dev vote.

> I still don't like it. I think that anyone should be able to submit
> things to a developer-wide vote if desired, regardless of whether a
> council majority supports it. I suppose maybe I would be OK with
> having at least one council "sponsor" for the vote, but I hate the
> idea of the council having a pre-vote veto on any idea they don't
> like that changes how they operate.

I think there are two alternative scenarios here:

1. If the council itself puts forward the idea of restructuring its
   mode of operation, then of course there should be a council vote
   before it is passed on to the dev community. I agree with Fabian
   here.

2. On the other hand, if such an idea is driven by the dev community,
   then the council shouldn't discuss it at all (not as council, of
   course individual council members can participate in the
   discussion).

> Let's say I propose an idea that 80% of the council likes but 80%
> of developers want. This doesn't seem unreasonable since I was very
> highly ranked in voting with a platform that involves totally
> changing our leadership structure, and yet the council insists it
> cannot change GLEP 39. I would be pretty pissed if most of Gentoo
> wanted something but the "cabal" at the top didn't even let them
> make the choice.

I've read this paragraph twice, but I still fail to understand it.
Why do you call it a "cabal" if there is a large majority both amongst
council members and devs in general?

Ulrich

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Fabian Groffen]

On 05-08-2011 12:30:26 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> I think there are two alternative scenarios here:
> 
> 1. If the council itself puts forward the idea of restructuring its
>    mode of operation, then of course there should be a council vote
>    before it is passed on to the dev community. I agree with Fabian
>    here.
> 
> 2. On the other hand, if such an idea is driven by the dev community,
>    then the council shouldn't discuss it at all (not as council, of
>    course individual council members can participate in the
>    discussion).

Thanks Ulrich.
I previously only considered option 1.  I completely concur to both
scenarios.


-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1690 bytes --]

On 12:30 Fri 05 Aug     , Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, 5 Aug 2011, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > Let's say I propose an idea that 80% of the council likes but 80% of 
> > developers want. This doesn't seem unreasonable since I was very 
> > highly ranked in voting with a platform that involves totally 
> > changing our leadership structure, and yet the council insists it 
> > cannot change GLEP 39. I would be pretty pissed if most of Gentoo 
> > wanted something but the "cabal" at the top didn't even let them 
> > make the choice.
> 
> I've read this paragraph twice, but I still fail to understand it. Why 
> do you call it a "cabal" if there is a large majority both amongst 
> council members and devs in general?

But I'm not saying that. Instead, what if (this is a hypothetical, not 
saying it's reality) there's just a few council members whom the devs in 
general support?

Let's assume the following scenario:

The developer base only wants 3 people on the council and disagrees with 
the views of the other 4. But since 7 are required to be on it, they 
must vote for 7 or get stuck in an infinite loop of reopening 
nominations. The undesired 4 people could block the other 3 from 
proposing any changes to GLEP 39.

In other words, it sounds like what you're saying is that anyone could 
propose changes to GLEP 39 that go to a full developer vote. Unless 
you're on the council, in which case there's an automatic veto 
opportunity given to them first. That second bit is the part that 
doesn't make any sense to me.

-- 
Thanks,
Donnie

Donnie Berkholz
Council Member / Sr. Developer
Gentoo Linux
Blog: http://dberkholz.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Fabian Groffen]

On 09-08-2011 09:05:31 -0500, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Let's assume the following scenario:
> 
> The developer base only wants 3 people on the council and disagrees with 
> the views of the other 4. But since 7 are required to be on it, they 
> must vote for 7 or get stuck in an infinite loop of reopening 
> nominations. The undesired 4 people could block the other 3 from 
> proposing any changes to GLEP 39.

If the developer base wants that, it's probably not hard to find 7
people to run for council and get elected, isn't it?  I don't see the
block here.


-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 959 bytes --]

On 19:25 Tue 09 Aug     , Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 09-08-2011 09:05:31 -0500, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > Let's assume the following scenario:
> > 
> > The developer base only wants 3 people on the council and disagrees with 
> > the views of the other 4. But since 7 are required to be on it, they 
> > must vote for 7 or get stuck in an infinite loop of reopening 
> > nominations. The undesired 4 people could block the other 3 from 
> > proposing any changes to GLEP 39.
> 
> If the developer base wants that, it's probably not hard to find 7
> people to run for council and get elected, isn't it?  I don't see the
> block here.

The whole point is the ridiculous idea of this difference between a 
"community-pushed" GLEP 39 change and one promoted by a group of devs 
who happen to have a council member leading them.

-- 
Thanks,
Donnie

Donnie Berkholz
Council Member / Sr. Developer
Gentoo Linux
Blog: http://dberkholz.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[gentoo-project] Re: Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Steven J Long]

Ulrich Mueller wrote:

>> Let's say I propose an idea that 80% of the council likes but 80%
>> of developers want. This doesn't seem unreasonable since I was very
>> highly ranked in voting with a platform that involves totally
>> changing our leadership structure, and yet the council insists it
>> cannot change GLEP 39. I would be pretty pissed if most of Gentoo
>> wanted something but the "cabal" at the top didn't even let them
>> make the choice.
> 
> I've read this paragraph twice, but I still fail to understand it.
> Why do you call it a "cabal" if there is a large majority both amongst
> council members and devs in general?
> 
I think it's a typo-- the first line should read:
>> Let's say I propose an idea that 80% of the council _dislikes_ but 80%
>> of developers want.
-- 
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1035 bytes --]

On 14:12 Fri 12 Aug     , Steven J Long wrote:
> Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> 
> >> Let's say I propose an idea that 80% of the council likes but 80%
> >> of developers want. This doesn't seem unreasonable since I was very
> >> highly ranked in voting with a platform that involves totally
> >> changing our leadership structure, and yet the council insists it
> >> cannot change GLEP 39. I would be pretty pissed if most of Gentoo
> >> wanted something but the "cabal" at the top didn't even let them
> >> make the choice.
> > 
> > I've read this paragraph twice, but I still fail to understand it.
> > Why do you call it a "cabal" if there is a large majority both amongst
> > council members and devs in general?
> > 
> I think it's a typo-- the first line should read:
> >> Let's say I propose an idea that 80% of the council _dislikes_ but 80%
> >> of developers want.

Entirely right, good catch.

-- 
Thanks,
Donnie

Donnie Berkholz
Council Member / Sr. Developer
Gentoo Linux
Blog: http://dberkholz.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Roy Bamford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 429 bytes --]

On 2011.08.02 00:24, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
[snip]

> One thing I dislike in Roy's proposal is moving from 7 to 5 council
> members. 
[snip]
> --
> Regards,
> 
> Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
> Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng
> 

Did I suggest that ?

-- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) a member of
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
trustees

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 02-08-2011 17:58, Roy Bamford wrote:
> On 2011.08.02 00:24, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: [snip]
> 
>> One thing I dislike in Roy's proposal is moving from 7 to 5
>> council members.
> [snip]
>> -- Regards,
>> 
>> Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org Gentoo-
>> forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng
>> 
> 
> Did I suggest that ?

Roy,

I'm sorry for misunderstanding and misquoting you. I've been reading
emails from the project ml for a few *long* minutes now as I could swear
I had read an email from you talking about having 5 council members and
electing on rotation 2 or 3 members. I see I was able to convince myself
of something you didn't suggest - again my apologies.

- -- 
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=ws/R
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Roy Bamford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 886 bytes --]

On 2011.08.03 03:39, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> On 02-08-2011 17:58, Roy Bamford wrote:
> > On 2011.08.02 00:24, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: [snip]
> >
> >> One thing I dislike in Roy's proposal is moving from 7 to 5
> >> council members.
> > [snip]
> >> -- Regards,
> >>
> >> Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org 
> Gentoo-
> >> forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng
> >>
> >
> > Did I suggest that ?
> 
> Roy,
> 
> I'm sorry for misunderstanding and misquoting you.
[snip]
> --
> Regards,
> 
> Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
> Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng
> 

Jorge,

No problem - something as radical as that might have stirred more 
interest.

-- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) a member of
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
trustees

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 648 bytes --]

On 21:42 Wed 03 Aug     , Roy Bamford wrote:
> No problem - something as radical as that might have stirred more 
> interest.

And we'd hate to have people actually interested in this. =)

FWIW, I'd like to see us have 3 people at most on the council.

But regardless of how many people there are, I think they should be 
unequal with different areas of responsibility, independent 
decision-making authority, and only one person at the top to revert 
their decisions. I don't really like how all members are at-large.

-- 
Thanks,
Donnie

Donnie Berkholz
Council Member / Sr. Developer
Gentoo Linux
Blog: http://dberkholz.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Roy Bamford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1075 bytes --]

On 2011.08.04 21:06, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 21:42 Wed 03 Aug     , Roy Bamford wrote:
> > No problem - something as radical as that might have stirred more 
> > interest.
> 
> And we'd hate to have people actually interested in this. =)
> 
> FWIW, I'd like to see us have 3 people at most on the council.
> 
> But regardless of how many people there are, I think they should be 
> unequal with different areas of responsibility, independent 
> decision-making authority, and only one person at the top to revert 
> their decisions. I don't really like how all members are at-large.
> 
> -- 
> Thanks,
> Donnie
> 
> Donnie Berkholz
> Council Member / Sr. Developer
> Gentoo Linux
> Blog: http://dberkholz.com
> 

A smaller committee for a chief technical officer fits better into a 
normal corporate structure. A smaller council could form special 
interest groups to address individual problems so nothing would be lost 
from the reduced numbers. 

-- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) a member of
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
trustees

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 08/04/2011 11:19 PM, Roy Bamford wrote:
> On 2011.08.04 21:06, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>> On 21:42 Wed 03 Aug     , Roy Bamford wrote:
>>> No problem - something as radical as that might have stirred more
>>>  interest.
>> 
>> And we'd hate to have people actually interested in this. =)
>> 
>> FWIW, I'd like to see us have 3 people at most on the council.
>> 
>> But regardless of how many people there are, I think they should be
>>  unequal with different areas of responsibility, independent 
>> decision-making authority, and only one person at the top to revert
>>  their decisions. I don't really like how all members are
>> at-large.
>> 
>> -- Thanks, Donnie
>> 
>> Donnie Berkholz Council Member / Sr. Developer Gentoo Linux Blog:
>> http://dberkholz.com
>> 
> 
> A smaller committee for a chief technical officer fits better into a
>  normal corporate structure. A smaller council could form special 
> interest groups to address individual problems so nothing would be
> lost from the reduced numbers.
> 
FWIW, I support Donnie's idea. I would like to see a smaller and more
flexible Council which could assign tasks to interested parties. Right
now, it takes 3-4 months (that is 3-4 meetings) for a Council to decide
things and make substantial progress where other distributions are
moving faster by having a single developer or a small group leading the
project. In my point of view, we need to consider a fundamental change
to our organizational structure. Roy's ideas are very interesting,
however we need to decide on an abstract design before we dig into the
details.

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
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=jrrt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Fabian Groffen]

On 05-08-2011 11:33:52 +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
> > A smaller committee for a chief technical officer fits better into a
> >  normal corporate structure. A smaller council could form special 
> > interest groups to address individual problems so nothing would be
> > lost from the reduced numbers.
> > 
> FWIW, I support Donnie's idea. I would like to see a smaller and more
> flexible Council which could assign tasks to interested parties. Right
> now, it takes 3-4 months (that is 3-4 meetings) for a Council to decide
> things and make substantial progress where other distributions are
> moving faster by having a single developer or a small group leading the
> project. In my point of view, we need to consider a fundamental change
> to our organizational structure. Roy's ideas are very interesting,
> however we need to decide on an abstract design before we dig into the
> details.

You really don't think the effectiveness of Council meetings should be
improved, instead of just reducing the number of members and
responsibilties, such that just one person is responsible for a
decision?

I am against the idea of having single people being able to easily make
(possibly totally unfunded) decisions that affect Gentoo full project
wide.

On the one hand, I think too many issues are brought to the Council
because people want to be put in their rights, or because they don't
feel like digging out the details to make the right decision.

On the other hand, Council members should discuss much more on lists,
prior to meetings, ultimately resolving/deciding issues already before
any meeting takes place.  I see no direct need for centralised meetings
at all to discuss on many topics.  Voting could happen on a ML as good
as on IRC.


-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 08/05/2011 11:49 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 05-08-2011 11:33:52 +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
>>> A smaller committee for a chief technical officer fits better
>>> into a normal corporate structure. A smaller council could form
>>> special interest groups to address individual problems so nothing
>>> would be lost from the reduced numbers.
>>> 
>> FWIW, I support Donnie's idea. I would like to see a smaller and
>> more flexible Council which could assign tasks to interested
>> parties. Right now, it takes 3-4 months (that is 3-4 meetings) for
>> a Council to decide things and make substantial progress where
>> other distributions are moving faster by having a single developer
>> or a small group leading the project. In my point of view, we need
>> to consider a fundamental change to our organizational structure.
>> Roy's ideas are very interesting, however we need to decide on an
>> abstract design before we dig into the details.
> 
> You really don't think the effectiveness of Council meetings should
> be improved, instead of just reducing the number of members and 
> responsibilties, such that just one person is responsible for a 
> decision?
> 

This is possible up to a point. But having 7 people around makes it hard
to maintain an effectiveness/short meeting ratio. In this case, things
have to be discussed (and possibly decided) in advanced.

> I am against the idea of having single people being able to easily
> make (possibly totally unfunded) decisions that affect Gentoo full
> project wide.
> 
I wonder why this works so well for other distros.

> On the other hand, Council members should discuss much more on
> lists, prior to meetings, ultimately resolving/deciding issues
> already before any meeting takes place.  I see no direct need for
> centralised meetings at all to discuss on many topics.  Voting could
> happen on a ML as good as on IRC.
> 

I agree. The discussion should start on the next day of the meeting and
not one week before the next one.

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
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=GFa5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 7:01 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> I am against the idea of having single people being able to easily
>> make (possibly totally unfunded) decisions that affect Gentoo full
>> project wide.
>>
> I wonder why this works so well for other distros.

I'm not aware of any large community-based distros that work this way.
 It might work this way with a corporate-funded model, in which case
the guy in charge is typically appointed by whoever is fronting the
cash to run the operation.  In the end if it works out or not the
people who gets hurt or rewarded the most are the people who put the
guy in charge.

The other model that tends to work this way is the start-up model
where one person comes up with an idea and everybody else signs up to
follow them.  That is the Linux Torvalds or Daniel Robbins model.  It
is very hard to convert an organization to that model if it isn't
already running that way without doing a fork, which is just another
way of turning an established project into a start-up.

Gentoo already has a project lead model, which we should continue to
foster.  In fact, most issues should be resolved by a team with a lead
selected from the team.  I think this actually happens the vast
majority of the time - we just tend not to take so much notice when
things are going well, and things only go to the council when that
model isn't quite working.

I don't really see a need for the council to be making decisions in an
instant.  They should only be involved if a decision lacks consensus,
and if a decision lacks consensus then it really should get a
reasonable amount of discussion.  That doesn't mean that the council
should feel paralyzed either.

Finally, I think the council should have discretion about what it
talks about.  If there is a community-sponsored GLEP39 change and they
want to vote support for a resolution telling all the devs that they
think that only an idiot would vote for it, then they should be free
to do so as long as they don't interfere with things.  The council is
basically the highest court when it comes to technical decision making
for the distro and while they should refrain from micromanaging they
shouldn't really be constrained from doing much of anything.  If we do
view them as the "CIO/CTO" of Gentoo then I'd just look at my
situation at work.  The CIO is very unlikely to walk into my office
and ask me what I'm doing, since that is a waste of everybody's time.
However, if the CIO did walk in I wouldn't get very far with an
argument that he had no right to be there.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 08/05/2011 01:35 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 7:01 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
>>> I am against the idea of having single people being able to
>>> easily make (possibly totally unfunded) decisions that affect
>>> Gentoo full project wide.
>>> 
>> I wonder why this works so well for other distros.
> 
> I'm not aware of any large community-based distros that work this
> way.

Really? Lets see

Debian: http://www.debian.org/devel/leader
ArchLinux: http://www.archlinux.org/news/arch-leadership/ ( Had and
still has a leader afaik )

Even though these projects have a single leader, they seem to have a
clear technical direction and they are doing pretty well in development
overall. Better than we do at the moment.

I am still not convinced that a committee of 7 people is flexible enough
to push radical changes. Maybe they are but they need to spend enough
time talking about things before meetings. Does everyone has the time to
spend so many hours on mailing lists? See how many discussions end up to
/dev/null or just forgotten after a while.

How much Gentoo differs from 2007? Ignore the load of EAPIs ( which I
object to the frequency we release them ). Do you still think that the
old style management (that is the one that was formed when Robbins left,
and it is pretty much the same until then) is efficient enough nowadays?

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
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=rnUK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
> How much Gentoo differs from 2007?

I think this is the wrong question - simply being different means
nothing.  Gnome 3 is different, nobody will argue with that.

In what way should we more be different from what we were in 2007 than
we are today?

Still, I'd say that our mailing lists are less flame-prone, our init
system is more modern, we now have regularly-updated install media,
and we have more cooperation with alternate configurations (other PMs,
prefix, etc).  While the foundation still has a little way to go, I'd
say the foundation is also in much better shape.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 08/05/2011 02:35 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
>> How much Gentoo differs from 2007?
> 
> I think this is the wrong question - simply being different means 
> nothing.  Gnome 3 is different, nobody will argue with that.
> 
> In what way should we more be different from what we were in 2007
> than we are today?
> 
> Still, I'd say that our mailing lists are less flame-prone,
The last flame was in May with all the ChangeLog mess. Not that far away.

our init
> system is more modern, we now have regularly-updated install media, 
> and we have more cooperation with alternate configurations (other
> PMs, prefix, etc).
Good point except that these are accomplishes of sub-projects ( openrc,
releng, pms and prefix ) and have nothing to do with how Gentoo is
governed. It wouldn't make any difference if Gentoo had a single leader
or a Council with 20 members. Those project would have still
accomplished their goals. What about global project issues though? ( see
below )

Gentoo as a governance model is still the same, meaning it is far too
complex, too much time is consumed on mailing lists leading to dead
ends, and global project directions or improvements are introduced
slowly. Some global project issues that should have been resolved years
ago are

* slacking arches
* dead projects with hundreds of open bugs
* singed manifests etc

I vividly remember that the previous council tried to resolve the
slacking arches issue. Of course there was no decision. So if we try to
bring this again to the agenda, we need to recycle the whole discussion
that was done then, get our MLs busy for a couple of weeks, and
hopefully we will have a solution by January 2012.

I am sorry, but this is not what I call "flexible governance model"

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
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=WmDQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Fabian Groffen]

On 05-08-2011 14:17:29 +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
> I am still not convinced that a committee of 7 people is flexible enough
> to push radical changes.

Perhaps I misunderstand you here, but I don't think making radical
changes is good, that's what 7 people balance out.  Radical changes have
been made to important parts of Gentoo like e.g. Python, and this didn't
really result in a major improvement, IMO.

> Maybe they are but they need to spend enough
> time talking about things before meetings. Does everyone has the time to
> spend so many hours on mailing lists? See how many discussions end up to
> /dev/null or just forgotten after a while.

Being a council member means you have to deal with it.  I don't think
you get the red button for free, you're supposed to do some good
homework for it.

When discussions die, probably this is because noone could come up with
a clear enough problem, and directed discussion to come to some
conclusions.  Controversial topics of course always have proponents and
opponents, but just deciding to go left or right doesn't necessarily
help to improve the situation.  It just makes some happy and others
angry.


-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 08/05/2011 02:44 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 05-08-2011 14:17:29 +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> I am still not convinced that a committee of 7 people is flexible
>> enough to push radical changes.
> 
> Perhaps I misunderstand you here, but I don't think making radical 
> changes is good, that's what 7 people balance out.  Radical changes
> have been made to important parts of Gentoo like e.g. Python, and
> this didn't really result in a major improvement, IMO.

My point is how fast and how flexible can a committee like this decide
on global project issues

> 
>> Maybe they are but they need to spend enough time talking about
>> things before meetings. Does everyone has the time to spend so many
>> hours on mailing lists? See how many discussions end up to 
>> /dev/null or just forgotten after a while.
> 
> Being a council member means you have to deal with it.  I don't
> think you get the red button for free, you're supposed to do some
> good homework for it.
> 
> When discussions die, probably this is because noone could come up
> with a clear enough problem, and directed discussion to come to some 
> conclusions.  Controversial topics of course always have proponents
> and opponents, but just deciding to go left or right doesn't
> necessarily help to improve the situation.  It just makes some happy
> and others angry.
> 
> 
Right nobody came with a proper solution yet the problems still exists.
The same problem will probably pop up again in the future, recycling the
previous discussion and go back to sleep again. Someone has to decide
and vote for the least worst solution before the problem goes back to
hibernation, otherwise you are back to square 0. This is no progress

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
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=T54Z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Patrick Lauer]

On 08/05/11 15:54, Markos Chandras wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
> 
> On 08/05/2011 02:44 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
>> On 05-08-2011 14:17:29 +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
>>> I am still not convinced that a committee of 7 people is flexible
>>> enough to push radical changes.
>>
>> Perhaps I misunderstand you here, but I don't think making radical 
>> changes is good, that's what 7 people balance out.  Radical changes
>> have been made to important parts of Gentoo like e.g. Python, and
>> this didn't really result in a major improvement, IMO.
> 
> My point is how fast and how flexible can a committee like this decide
> on global project issues

If you have a good idea and carry it forward you can expect it to be
ratified within the next council meeting - so with deadlines for
discussion items etc. about 6 weeks turnaround time in the worst case.

But... for that YOU have to move things forward. Demanding that council
makes other people do things is not how Gentoo works. So if you think
slacking arches are a problem ... aquire a Mips or Sparc or whatever
machine and get cracking.

> Right nobody came with a proper solution yet the problems still exists.
> The same problem will probably pop up again in the future, recycling the
> previous discussion and go back to sleep again. Someone has to decide
> and vote for the least worst solution before the problem goes back to
> hibernation, otherwise you are back to square 0. This is no progress

Actionism won't help. If you don't even have a solution either the
problem is well defined, very hard to solve or not the right problem to
fix (see the whole "let's find a problem so that systemd is a solution"
insanity that just won't walk away and leave us alone)

And again, if you don't want it to go to sleep work on it, find others
that want to work on it, radiate on relevant communication channels
(blog, mailing lists, ...) that you work on it.
Don't expect others to do things for you.

I'm quite happy with the current state, there's lots of users helping
with issues if you ask, there's usually a few devs that give at least
moral support, and things move as fast as I can keep them moving. What's
the problem with that? :)

Take care,

Patrick

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 08/05/2011 05:32 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 08/05/11 15:54, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512
>> 
>> On 08/05/2011 02:44 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
>>> On 05-08-2011 14:17:29 +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
>>>> I am still not convinced that a committee of 7 people is
>>>> flexible enough to push radical changes.
>>> 
>>> Perhaps I misunderstand you here, but I don't think making
>>> radical changes is good, that's what 7 people balance out.
>>> Radical changes have been made to important parts of Gentoo like
>>> e.g. Python, and this didn't really result in a major
>>> improvement, IMO.
>> 
>> My point is how fast and how flexible can a committee like this
>> decide on global project issues
> 
> If you have a good idea and carry it forward you can expect it to be 
> ratified within the next council meeting - so with deadlines for 
> discussion items etc. about 6 weeks turnaround time in the worst
> case.
> 
This is very optimistic.

> But... for that YOU have to move things forward. Demanding that
> council makes other people do things is not how Gentoo works. So if
> you think slacking arches are a problem ... aquire a Mips or Sparc or
> whatever machine and get cracking.

Right, exactly what I am saying. A single developer has to put his
effort to push things forward. Last time I remember something similar
was when Ben (yngwin) tried to introduce changes and he was "forced" to
retirement. Awesome. You know very well that if a single person tries on
his own to change things, he will lose motivation sooner or later.

You know, another solution for slacking arches is to drop the stable
keywords. OFC this is too scary and it wont make us look good :). This
problem in particular exists before I even become a developer. Everyone
complains, yet nothing changes :). And the solution is pretty obvious:
"If you can't maintain a stable tree, then don't have one"

> 
>> Right nobody came with a proper solution yet the problems still
>> exists. The same problem will probably pop up again in the future,
>> recycling the previous discussion and go back to sleep again.
>> Someone has to decide and vote for the least worst solution before
>> the problem goes back to hibernation, otherwise you are back to
>> square 0. This is no progress
> 
> Actionism won't help. If you don't even have a solution either the 
> problem is well defined, very hard to solve or not the right problem
> to fix (see the whole "let's find a problem so that systemd is a
> solution" insanity that just won't walk away and leave us alone)
> 
Maybe but pretending there is no problem is not good either. Keep
talking and try to come up with a solution. After all, most of us ( if
not everyone ) are engineers, programmers etc, sysadmins. We can't
really say "Eh, sorry, too hard for me, I'll skip it"

> And again, if you don't want it to go to sleep work on it, find
> others that want to work on it, radiate on relevant communication
> channels (blog, mailing lists, ...) that you work on it. Don't expect
> others to do things for you.
That is true.

> 
> I'm quite happy with the current state, there's lots of users
> helping with issues if you ask,
That could be better. We definitely need more communication channels
with users and bugzilla is a bottleneck. But this discussion does not
belong here.

> there's usually a few devs that give at least moral support, and
> things move as fast as I can keep them moving. What's the problem
> with that? :)

There is no problem, I am just saying things could definitely be better.
Again this does not belong here

What I gathered from your e-mail is that Council is there to just vote
for issues that other devs brought to the agenda. This is a bit pathetic
isn't it?

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
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=bhRf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Right, exactly what I am saying. A single developer has to put his
> effort to push things forward. Last time I remember something similar
> was when Ben (yngwin) tried to introduce changes and he was "forced" to
> retirement. Awesome. You know very well that if a single person tries on
> his own to change things, he will lose motivation sooner or later.

So, here's the thing.  If a huge number of devs are against an idea,
then it is probably best NOT to approve it unless it is just a matter
of bikeshedding.

What is the alternative?  One guy wants to make a huge change to
Gentoo.  Most don't agree.  Democratically elected council is thus
unlikely to back it.  Instead suppose we have a dictator for the year
or whatever and he happens to support it, so he issues an edict that
the one guy is the prophet for this year.

The result is that most people either end up ignoring the prophet and
the dictator and doing their own thing.  Or, maybe the prophet and
dictator manage to kick out half the devs who then just fork the
project.  Either way the initiative fails.

The only way you're going to succeed in an initiative like this with
everybody in opposition is to show true leadership and win people
over.  You don't need to be elected to do that.  If we're just talking
about a few hold-outs than I doubt that the current system would
prevent progress.

Let's look at the whole /usr thread.  It started out with lots of
shock and general opposition with one or two guys pushing for a
change.  They than brought forward arguments and I'd judge from recent
comments that they won over a good chunk of the dev population - now
we're just haggling about the how and not arguing so much over to-FHS
or not to-FHS.  By the time the council is asked to do anything (if
they even need to get involved) there will probably be a clear
majority consensus.  That's how you drive change.

If you can't win over a lot of devs then trying to force change is
likely to end you in X11R6 land.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 08/05/2011 08:22 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Markos Chandras
> <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> Right, exactly what I am saying. A single developer has to put his 
>> effort to push things forward. Last time I remember something
>> similar was when Ben (yngwin) tried to introduce changes and he was
>> "forced" to retirement. Awesome. You know very well that if a
>> single person tries on his own to change things, he will lose
>> motivation sooner or later.
> 
> So, here's the thing.  If a huge number of devs are against an idea, 
> then it is probably best NOT to approve it unless it is just a
> matter of bikeshedding.

You probably do not remember the case. A lot of people were supporting
his ideas. That was not the problem.

> 
> What is the alternative?  One guy wants to make a huge change to 
> Gentoo.  Most don't agree.  Democratically elected council is thus 
> unlikely to back it.  Instead suppose we have a dictator for the
> year or whatever and he happens to support it, so he issues an edict
> that the one guy is the prophet for this year.
> 

I am talking about situation that everybody agrees yet there is nobody
to step up and move it forward.

> Let's look at the whole /usr thread.  It started out with lots of 
> shock and general opposition with one or two guys pushing for a 
> change.  They than brought forward arguments and I'd judge from
> recent comments that they won over a good chunk of the dev population
> - now we're just haggling about the how and not arguing so much over
> to-FHS or not to-FHS.  By the time the council is asked to do
> anything (if they even need to get involved) there will probably be a
> clear majority consensus.  That's how you drive change.
> 
I am very interested to see if a solution will ever come up from that
thread.

/me shuts up and goes back to his corner

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
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=1p25
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Matt Turner]

On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org> wrote:
> So if you think
> slacking arches are a problem ... aquire a Mips or Sparc or whatever
> machine and get cracking.

Thank you. Yes, please do this.

I don't mean to go off topic, but every time I see a complaint about
"slacking arches" I wonder if the person realized that almost all of
the "slacking arch" teams are run almost entirely by a single person,
armin76.

Take a look at the number of commits that he has and then complain
about slacking.

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 08/05/2011 07:36 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
>> So if you think slacking arches are a problem ... aquire a Mips or
>> Sparc or whatever machine and get cracking.
> 
> Thank you. Yes, please do this.
> 
> I don't mean to go off topic, but every time I see a complaint about 
> "slacking arches" I wonder if the person realized that almost all of 
> the "slacking arch" teams are run almost entirely by a single
> person, armin76.
> 
> Take a look at the number of commits that he has and then complain 
> about slacking.
> 
What are you talking about? Did I ever blame Armin76? Do you think that
having a single person doing all the commits can justify your argument?
A single person doing commits 24/7 is not a proof that an arch is in a
good state. You have totally missed the point here.

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
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=2XzS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 05-08-2011 18:43, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 08/05/2011 07:36 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Patrick Lauer
>> <patrick@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> So if you think slacking arches are a problem ... aquire a Mips
>>> or Sparc or whatever machine and get cracking.
> 
>> Thank you. Yes, please do this.
> 
>> I don't mean to go off topic, but every time I see a complaint
>> about "slacking arches" I wonder if the person realized that almost
>> all of the "slacking arch" teams are run almost entirely by a
>> single person, armin76.
> 
>> Take a look at the number of commits that he has and then complain
>>  about slacking.
> 
> What are you talking about? Did I ever blame Armin76? Do you think
> that having a single person doing all the commits can justify your
> argument? A single person doing commits 24/7 is not a proof that an
> arch is in a good state. You have totally missed the point here.

Markos,

I'm sorry, but in my view, you and others have completely missed the
point when you ignore the issue with man power and resources to do arch
work or the relevance of it and focus only on "punishing" "slacking arches".
Having Raúl as the single or the de-facto single maintainer for an arch
is something that should worry us, but not to call such an arch
"slacking" or, worse, "dead".
One of the issues with the "slacking arches" topic is that people tend
to associate it with mips, alpha, sparc or some of the other "exotic"
arches. However, in one of the iterations about this topic, someone put
forth numbers that showed that amd64 was at the time one of the worst
"slacking arches". This should be the arch more developers use daily and
is likely the one with more members (herd count). Also, one should
remember the time it takes to compile, test or debug an issue in a
recent amd64 system or an old / slow box with an "exotic arch" varies
substantially. Not to mention that the amount of testing done on "exotic
arches" varies substantially between projects.

In the last council, I've took the job of promoting some email threads
between arch teams, the council, trustees and infra to see what we could
do about it. Some of the issues were then opened on the project ml. You
are correct that there wasn't a "quick", "final" or even "conclusive"
decision, but I'll argue that we needed more debate - including more
interest and participation from the community. I do think we had a good
discussion.
This issue, including the attempt to get more hardware and special
deals, is still being worked on, though. Mostly through Raúl's
"persistance", infra has discussed some specs for boxes and there's a
proposal being worked on with Lance for hosting a ganeti cluster at OSUOSL.

If the argument in the end boils down to how many arches Gentoo supports
and about leaving support for some arches or killing it so that
maintainers aren't "bogged down" by arches, I'll support arches over
maintainers.

- -- 
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=GEWR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 08/06/2011 04:11 AM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> On 05-08-2011 18:43, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> On 08/05/2011 07:36 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Patrick Lauer 
>>> <patrick@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>> So if you think slacking arches are a problem ... aquire a
>>>> Mips or Sparc or whatever machine and get cracking.
> 
>>> Thank you. Yes, please do this.
> 
>>> I don't mean to go off topic, but every time I see a complaint 
>>> about "slacking arches" I wonder if the person realized that
>>> almost all of the "slacking arch" teams are run almost entirely
>>> by a single person, armin76.
> 
>>> Take a look at the number of commits that he has and then
>>> complain about slacking.
> 
>> What are you talking about? Did I ever blame Armin76? Do you think 
>> that having a single person doing all the commits can justify your 
>> argument? A single person doing commits 24/7 is not a proof that
>> an arch is in a good state. You have totally missed the point
>> here.
> 
> Markos,
> 
> I'm sorry, but in my view, you and others have completely missed the 
> point when you ignore the issue with man power and resources to do
> arch work or the relevance of it and focus only on "punishing"
> "slacking arches". Having Raúl as the single or the de-facto single
> maintainer for an arch is something that should worry us, but not to
> call such an arch "slacking" or, worse, "dead".

Oh come on Jorge. You know what I mean by slacking arches. I am not
talking about punishing them. Maybe drop stable keywords or drop keyword
from X package and shrink their tree so they can keep up with the load.

> One of the issues with the "slacking arches" topic is that people
> tend to associate it with mips, alpha, sparc or some of the other
> "exotic" arches. However, in one of the iterations about this topic,
> someone put forth numbers that showed that amd64 was at the time one
> of the worst "slacking arches".
I did that but things got slightly better since then.

> This should be the arch more developers use daily and is likely the
> one with more members (herd count). Also, one should remember the
> time it takes to compile, test or debug an issue in a recent amd64
> system or an old / slow box with an "exotic arch" varies 
> substantially. Not to mention that the amount of testing done on
> "exotic arches" varies substantially between projects.
I am aware of the problems and this is way I want a solution.
> 
> In the last council, I've took the job of promoting some email
> threads between arch teams, the council, trustees and infra to see
> what we could do about it. Some of the issues were then opened on the
> project ml. You are correct that there wasn't a "quick", "final" or
> even "conclusive" decision, but I'll argue that we needed more debate
> - including more interest and participation from the community. I do
> think we had a good discussion.
Yes, we discussed what was needed etc but I don't really think that
anything changed since them. If not, then I apologize

> If the argument in the end boils down to how many arches Gentoo
> supports and about leaving support for some arches or killing it so
> that maintainers aren't "bogged down" by arches, I'll support arches
> over maintainers.
> 
I never said to completely drop these arches. When did I say that? I
just want a more realistic approach on how well an arch is supported.
Why you people are afraid to admit that we have problems? Having an arch
with constantly >200 stabilization bugs open clearly proves that the
manpower cannot handle the situation.

ps: ++ to Raúl for his work. I hope he wont fed up with that in the
future :)

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
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=7xTL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Fabian Groffen]

On 06-08-2011 11:00:16 +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
> Oh come on Jorge. You know what I mean by slacking arches. I am not
> talking about punishing them. Maybe drop stable keywords or drop keyword
> from X package and shrink their tree so they can keep up with the load.
> 
> > This should be the arch more developers use daily and is likely the
> > one with more members (herd count). Also, one should remember the
> > time it takes to compile, test or debug an issue in a recent amd64
> > system or an old / slow box with an "exotic arch" varies 
> > substantially. Not to mention that the amount of testing done on
> > "exotic arches" varies substantially between projects.
> I am aware of the problems and this is way I want a solution.

And what solution do you have in mind (in your Council role)?

> > In the last council, I've took the job of promoting some email
> > threads between arch teams, the council, trustees and infra to see
> > what we could do about it. Some of the issues were then opened on the
> > project ml. You are correct that there wasn't a "quick", "final" or
> > even "conclusive" decision, but I'll argue that we needed more debate
> > - including more interest and participation from the community. I do
> > think we had a good discussion.
> Yes, we discussed what was needed etc but I don't really think that
> anything changed since them. If not, then I apologize

What would you have seen changed that the Council can influence upon?

> > If the argument in the end boils down to how many arches Gentoo
> > supports and about leaving support for some arches or killing it so
> > that maintainers aren't "bogged down" by arches, I'll support arches
> > over maintainers.
> > 
> I never said to completely drop these arches. When did I say that? I
> just want a more realistic approach on how well an arch is supported.
> Why you people are afraid to admit that we have problems? Having an arch
> with constantly >200 stabilization bugs open clearly proves that the
> manpower cannot handle the situation.

How do you suggest the Council to solve this issue and, as you indicated
before, right now?


-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 08/06/2011 12:49 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 06-08-2011 11:00:16 +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> Oh come on Jorge. You know what I mean by slacking arches. I am
>> not talking about punishing them. Maybe drop stable keywords or
>> drop keyword from X package and shrink their tree so they can keep
>> up with the load.
>> 
>>> This should be the arch more developers use daily and is likely
>>> the one with more members (herd count). Also, one should remember
>>> the time it takes to compile, test or debug an issue in a recent
>>> amd64 system or an old / slow box with an "exotic arch" varies 
>>> substantially. Not to mention that the amount of testing done on 
>>> "exotic arches" varies substantially between projects.
>> I am aware of the problems and this is way I want a solution.
> 
> And what solution do you have in mind (in your Council role)?
> 

Drop stable keywords for certain arches and/or remove their keywords
from X packages. The idea is to keep only a single and smaller portage
tree which would be much more easier to manage. Pretty much the same
situation as MIPS. It worked pretty well on MIPS, so it will work on
these arches too

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
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=/l3O
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 06-08-2011 11:59, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 08/06/2011 12:49 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
>> On 06-08-2011 11:00:16 +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
>>> Oh come on Jorge. You know what I mean by slacking arches. I am 
>>> not talking about punishing them. Maybe drop stable keywords or 
>>> drop keyword from X package and shrink their tree so they can
>>> keep up with the load.
>>> 
>>>> This should be the arch more developers use daily and is
>>>> likely the one with more members (herd count). Also, one should
>>>> remember the time it takes to compile, test or debug an issue
>>>> in a recent amd64 system or an old / slow box with an "exotic
>>>> arch" varies substantially. Not to mention that the amount of
>>>> testing done on "exotic arches" varies substantially between
>>>> projects.
>>> I am aware of the problems and this is way I want a solution.
> 
>> And what solution do you have in mind (in your Council role)?
> 
> 
> Drop stable keywords for certain arches and/or remove their keywords 
> from X packages. The idea is to keep only a single and smaller
> portage tree which would be much more easier to manage. Pretty much
> the same situation as MIPS. It worked pretty well on MIPS, so it will
> work on these arches too

If you talk to Mike, Raúl and Matt, I'm sure they'll tell you that
trying to get an arch out of testing status to supported is a nightmare.
AFAIK that was already done once for arm and is happening now for mips.

About the arches with >200 stable bugs, should we have dropped KDE from
the tree when for years we had >300 open bugs? Should we stop doing
releases if we have >100 open bugs? What about mysql with >50 open bugs,
etc?
Furthermore, there have been many complaints from arches with a high
number of stable bugs that by the time they were working on a stable
bug, a maintainer either dropped the version they were testing or
somewhere else in the tree someone decided to drop their keywords and
got their tree broken.
Some arch team members may take a while to reply at times but some
maintainers also "help" increasing the AT work load by not thinking
about arches now and then.

- -- 
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=4Mu4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 08/06/2011 01:24 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> On 06-08-2011 11:59, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> On 08/06/2011 12:49 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
>>> On 06-08-2011 11:00:16 +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
>>>> Oh come on Jorge. You know what I mean by slacking arches. I am
>>>>  not talking about punishing them. Maybe drop stable keywords
>>>> or drop keyword from X package and shrink their tree so they
>>>> can keep up with the load.
>>>> 
>>>>> This should be the arch more developers use daily and is 
>>>>> likely the one with more members (herd count). Also, one
>>>>> should remember the time it takes to compile, test or debug
>>>>> an issue in a recent amd64 system or an old / slow box with
>>>>> an "exotic arch" varies substantially. Not to mention that
>>>>> the amount of testing done on "exotic arches" varies
>>>>> substantially between projects.
>>>> I am aware of the problems and this is way I want a solution.
> 
>>> And what solution do you have in mind (in your Council role)?
> 
> 
>> Drop stable keywords for certain arches and/or remove their
>> keywords from X packages. The idea is to keep only a single and
>> smaller portage tree which would be much more easier to manage.
>> Pretty much the same situation as MIPS. It worked pretty well on
>> MIPS, so it will work on these arches too
> 
> If you talk to Mike, Raúl and Matt, I'm sure they'll tell you that 
> trying to get an arch out of testing status to supported is a
> nightmare.
Why would you wanna do that? The situation is highly unlikely to change
in the future. It is better to have a fully working testing tree than
pretending to have a usable stable tree. I would accept a solution were
only @system is in stable and everything else is in ~testing.

> AFAIK that was already done once for arm and is happening now for
> mips.
> 
> About the arches with >200 stable bugs, should we have dropped KDE
> from the tree when for years we had >300 open bugs? Should we stop
> doing releases if we have >100 open bugs? What about mysql with >50
> open bugs, etc?
You can't really compare an architecture with a package can you?

> Furthermore, there have been many complaints from arches with a high 
> number of stable bugs that by the time they were working on a stable 
> bug, a maintainer either dropped the version they were testing or 
> somewhere else in the tree someone decided to drop their keywords
> and got their tree broken.
We can't keep old ebuilds around forever just because an arch decides to
act on these bugs after 10 months. I'd say it again, I don't blame them,
they have real lives too.

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
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=TSYO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Fabian Groffen]

On 06-08-2011 12:59:17 +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
> >>> This should be the arch more developers use daily and is likely
> >>> the one with more members (herd count). Also, one should remember
> >>> the time it takes to compile, test or debug an issue in a recent
> >>> amd64 system or an old / slow box with an "exotic arch" varies 
> >>> substantially. Not to mention that the amount of testing done on 
> >>> "exotic arches" varies substantially between projects.
> >> I am aware of the problems and this is way I want a solution.
> > 
> > And what solution do you have in mind (in your Council role)?
> 
> Drop stable keywords for certain arches and/or remove their keywords
> from X packages. The idea is to keep only a single and smaller portage
> tree which would be much more easier to manage. Pretty much the same
> situation as MIPS. It worked pretty well on MIPS, so it will work on
> these arches too

As Jorge already pointed out, what you consider to be a solution here,
others don't.  And that is also the reason why the Council is, what you
perceive as, slow.


-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 08/06/2011 01:47 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 06-08-2011 12:59:17 +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
>>>>> This should be the arch more developers use daily and is
>>>>> likely the one with more members (herd count). Also, one
>>>>> should remember the time it takes to compile, test or debug
>>>>> an issue in a recent amd64 system or an old / slow box with
>>>>> an "exotic arch" varies substantially. Not to mention that
>>>>> the amount of testing done on "exotic arches" varies
>>>>> substantially between projects.
>>>> I am aware of the problems and this is way I want a solution.
>>> 
>>> And what solution do you have in mind (in your Council role)?
>> 
>> Drop stable keywords for certain arches and/or remove their
>> keywords from X packages. The idea is to keep only a single and
>> smaller portage tree which would be much more easier to manage.
>> Pretty much the same situation as MIPS. It worked pretty well on
>> MIPS, so it will work on these arches too
> 
> As Jorge already pointed out, what you consider to be a solution
> here, others don't.  And that is also the reason why the Council is,
> what you perceive as, slow.
> 
> 
I am talking as a developer not as a council member. I am not sure who
others are since it is only you,me and Jorge that participate in this
thread. However, I accept that the majority of devs may be happy (I
always take silence as a way to say "blah blah blah > /dev/null) to keep
around ebuild versions from 2010 until exotic-arch-#14 stabilizes it.

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
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=d90R
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Fabian Groffen]

On 06-08-2011 13:54:39 +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
> > As Jorge already pointed out, what you consider to be a solution
> > here, others don't.  And that is also the reason why the Council is,
> > what you perceive as, slow.
> > 
> I am talking as a developer not as a council member. I am not sure who
> others are since it is only you,me and Jorge that participate in this
> thread. However, I accept that the majority of devs may be happy (I
> always take silence as a way to say "blah blah blah > /dev/null) to keep
> around ebuild versions from 2010 until exotic-arch-#14 stabilizes it.

Sorry, I thought you said that you wanted to solve problems.


-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 08/06/2011 03:16 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 06-08-2011 13:54:39 +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
>>> As Jorge already pointed out, what you consider to be a solution 
>>> here, others don't.  And that is also the reason why the Council
>>> is, what you perceive as, slow.
>>> 
>> I am talking as a developer not as a council member. I am not sure
>> who others are since it is only you,me and Jorge that participate
>> in this thread. However, I accept that the majority of devs may be
>> happy (I always take silence as a way to say "blah blah blah >
>> /dev/null) to keep around ebuild versions from 2010 until
>> exotic-arch-#14 stabilizes it.
> 
> Sorry, I thought you said that you wanted to solve problems.
> 
> 
It appears to be only my problem like you said

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)

iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJOPVFwAAoJEPqDWhW0r/LCxFAQAJlqWPA4pXg+g1ICNPYSQqOa
R++LsbynVnlH1+Hp0IcMYHVvUGZWuU6wRR7sUEvQQz6+h1+FvovC0jNpDkh4zOXA
3AaGw/V+6U/2s+qfZXkpziIXIbf9BMgENCOCvjgEMtdgM60Ew+dASOeyKFY1n4te
xFsQ3up20WM0YFX1NEZqD8eftkNF5MRZO215DnDeA/eWwgsdFqNyjDxkaOibqfVq
PM5r4LYL55dc+bWmKViWXPRfpIBF0PYpDsnMSNa27CWf23ZxkbviIhtwAWXYl/9i
TMWIhTQn76bvtuFywVW9LK98w4lGvITxgARAT8x0EVRYBz/6tVYb8WhQMZAFwAq6
8iJ7+8Px0lDOW0EBHpJhNAuGZQQb8iXNKc72E3FfP9fHlQdJ+qpv14Z55SNdJf4J
JZCVJ44ue4agBG1zXB4GZMCGLcXlltiwisySLG4VULNZGp4paa1l09X8wV4iYDn3
WXbGiTG4QYrfSLv8HYWGx+AeexPI0QyyCKa9ekSObVcdvMs5YgL/fTeIgn2Ohc89
DBtgtKOWZuXBw/t/gL9BGkZ5EwOKbJnIjntFMTobHtA8h3wrPAiXN3Nqg9pB90R+
po1IjpDunol03lODYrPBDnjUZQpD6UCNPSIzucSgtuES4kscwpOgO8r4KnFAeyPe
GrkJH2sRQXSM5i7sjGz/
=IKJb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Fabian Groffen]

On 06-08-2011 15:36:32 +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
> 
> On 08/06/2011 03:16 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> > On 06-08-2011 13:54:39 +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
> >>> As Jorge already pointed out, what you consider to be a solution 
> >>> here, others don't.  And that is also the reason why the Council
> >>> is, what you perceive as, slow.
> >>> 
> >> I am talking as a developer not as a council member. I am not sure
> >> who others are since it is only you,me and Jorge that participate
> >> in this thread. However, I accept that the majority of devs may be
> >> happy (I always take silence as a way to say "blah blah blah >
> >> /dev/null) to keep around ebuild versions from 2010 until
> >> exotic-arch-#14 stabilizes it.
> > 
> > Sorry, I thought you said that you wanted to solve problems.
> > 
> It appears to be only my problem like you said

I don't recall saying that.


-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 08/06/2011 03:54 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> As Jorge already pointed out, what you consider to be a solution
>>>>> here, others don't
My solution is not good enough according to you and Jorge, but no other
solutions are present. This is exactly the case I pointed yesterday:
When we don't have a solution, we silence the problem and move on ;)

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
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=ES7T
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Fabian Groffen]

On 06-08-2011 16:01:03 +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
> 
> On 08/06/2011 03:54 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> > As Jorge already pointed out, what you consider to be a solution
> >>>>> here, others don't
> My solution is not good enough according to you and Jorge, but no other
> solutions are present. This is exactly the case I pointed yesterday:
> When we don't have a solution, we silence the problem and move on ;)

I don't like your solution, because it bothers people that are affected
by your solution.  The silence goes on now because your solution isn't a
solution that looks as if it will be accepted by the people involved.

I just presented an alternative solution on -dev, which you in turn may
like or dislike.  We both want to solve the problem.


-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1383 bytes --]

On Saturday, August 06, 2011 07:49:21 Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 06-08-2011 11:00:16 +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
> > Oh come on Jorge. You know what I mean by slacking arches. I am not
> > talking about punishing them. Maybe drop stable keywords or drop keyword
> > from X package and shrink their tree so they can keep up with the load.
> > 
> > > This should be the arch more developers use daily and is likely the
> > > one with more members (herd count). Also, one should remember the
> > > time it takes to compile, test or debug an issue in a recent amd64
> > > system or an old / slow box with an "exotic arch" varies
> > > substantially. Not to mention that the amount of testing done on
> > > "exotic arches" varies substantially between projects.
> > 
> > I am aware of the problems and this is way I want a solution.
> 
> And what solution do you have in mind (in your Council role)?

automated build boxes + better tools for marking packages stable.  a command 
line interface that let's you view pending stable requests in a condensed 
format and quickly approve from right there (which would post a comment and 
mark the respective ebuild stable for you).

a significant chunk of time wasted on keeping packages keyworded stable is the 
bugzilla interface and actually going into the cvs tree to make the stable 
change and commit it.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

["Paweł Hajdan, Jr."]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 746 bytes --]

On 8/12/11 1:43 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> a command 
> line interface that let's you view pending stable requests in a condensed 
> format and quickly approve from right there (which would post a comment and 
> mark the respective ebuild stable for you).

I have some tools that do subset of what you mentioned here:
http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/arch-tools.git;a=summary

Contributions welcome, and I extend those tools when I have a free
while. Last time I successfully stabilized a batch of 30 packages using
those tools.

They also help prevent mistakes, for example stabilizing package with
open bugs that are serious, or wasting time emerging packages that have
unmet deps etc.

Feedback also welcome!


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 194 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Matt Turner]

On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 6:00 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I never said to completely drop these arches. When did I say that? I
> just want a more realistic approach on how well an arch is supported.
> Why you people are afraid to admit that we have problems? Having an arch
> with constantly >200 stabilization bugs open clearly proves that the
> manpower cannot handle the situation.

I think it's important to put some numbers on this.

        total   stable  keyword developers
alpha    72      51     12      3
arm      69      22     18      5
hppa    103      71     13      4 (really 2)
ia64     73      45     20      2
mips     21       0      5      6 (wtf?)
ppc     233     171     29      5
ppc64    80      37     24      3
sparc   110      63     27      3

x86              80      2      13
amd64            40      1      7

The only architecture that is seriously backlogged in ppc, which is
probably due to the fact that we used to have lots of users. Just a
couple of weeks ago, ppc64 was in the same situation, until xarthisius
went on a stabilization/keywording spree. So it's definitely possible
to reduce this to a reasonable level, but I think ppc should probably
consider dropping some keywords.

hppa is higher than some others because hppa/linux in general isn't
very stable. sparc is above 100 because armin76 does all the
keywording by himself (I think?).

I actually gave up long ago on my idea of stabilizing mips. It's an
impossible task to do by yourself. Maybe one day if mips becomes a
more common architecture.

On alpha, we (mostly armin76) drop keywords pretty regularly when we
get a stabilization request for a package we've never heard of, and
I'd think other architectures do the same. The architecture teams know
what they can and can't support.

Matt

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 08/06/2011 04:33 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 6:00 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
>> I never said to completely drop these arches. When did I say that?
>> I just want a more realistic approach on how well an arch is
>> supported. Why you people are afraid to admit that we have
>> problems? Having an arch with constantly >200 stabilization bugs
>> open clearly proves that the manpower cannot handle the situation.
> 
> I think it's important to put some numbers on this.
> 
> x86              80      2      13 amd64            40      1      7

This is just hilarious :) The numbers of developers are not even close
to reality

> 
> The only architecture that is seriously backlogged in ppc, which is 
> probably due to the fact that we used to have lots of users. Just a 
> couple of weeks ago, ppc64 was in the same situation, until
> xarthisius

What if xarthisius, armin76, me and jer take 3 months off? What an evil
scenario :). The problem is when an architecture relies on a *single*
(or max 2) developers. You can't possibly claim that this architecture
is supported. You have a single/double point of failure. They can easily
retire someday or even lose their motivation. And then what? It would be
far too late to act

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
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=Z56b
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Matt Turner]

On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 08/06/2011 04:33 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 6:00 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org>
>> wrote:
>>> I never said to completely drop these arches. When did I say that?
>>> I just want a more realistic approach on how well an arch is
>>> supported. Why you people are afraid to admit that we have
>>> problems? Having an arch with constantly >200 stabilization bugs
>>> open clearly proves that the manpower cannot handle the situation.
>>
>> I think it's important to put some numbers on this.
>>
>> x86              80      2      13 amd64            40      1      7
>
> This is just hilarious :) The numbers of developers are not even close
> to reality

Same situation with the rest of the architectures, really.

>> The only architecture that is seriously backlogged in ppc, which is
>> probably due to the fact that we used to have lots of users. Just a
>> couple of weeks ago, ppc64 was in the same situation, until
>> xarthisius
>
> What if xarthisius, armin76, me and jer take 3 months off? What an evil
> scenario :). The problem is when an architecture relies on a *single*
> (or max 2) developers. You can't possibly claim that this architecture
> is supported. You have a single/double point of failure. They can easily
> retire someday or even lose their motivation. And then what? It would be
> far too late to act

We're in pretty bad shape if that happens.

We do have http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/infrastructure/dev-machines.xml

Maintainers could help arch teams greatly by giving their package a
quick test build on the development boxes. Not sure that's really an
acceptable solution though.

I wonder if we can't set up an automated system where a package
maintainer goes to a webpage and enters the package they'd like to
submit for a keyword request. The page would display the requirements
for each architecture, and the maintainer could then start a test
build that would run on the development boxes in a testing chroot, and
then give the results back to the maintainer. That would certainly
make the situation simpler for everyone.

Maybe that's deserving of a separation thread.

Matt

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 08/06/2011 04:53 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
> 
> I wonder if we can't set up an automated system where a package 
> maintainer goes to a webpage and enters the package they'd like to 
> submit for a keyword request. The page would display the
> requirements for each architecture, and the maintainer could then
> start a test build that would run on the development boxes in a
> testing chroot, and then give the results back to the maintainer.
> That would certainly make the situation simpler for everyone.
> 
> Maybe that's deserving of a separation thread.
> 
> Matt
> 
This would be the best ( afaik opensuse has such as system ). However,
this requires massive amount of time to even port it to Gentoo let alone
create it from scratch. This could be an interesting idea for a GSOC
project (provided the infrastructure is already in place ) but this is
what I call "a non-realistic solution" :)

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
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=AZC1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 06-08-2011 15:58, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 08/06/2011 04:53 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
> 
>> I wonder if we can't set up an automated system where a package 
>> maintainer goes to a webpage and enters the package they'd like to
>>  submit for a keyword request. The page would display the 
>> requirements for each architecture, and the maintainer could then 
>> start a test build that would run on the development boxes in a 
>> testing chroot, and then give the results back to the maintainer. 
>> That would certainly make the situation simpler for everyone.
> 
>> Maybe that's deserving of a separation thread.
> 
>> Matt
> 
> This would be the best ( afaik opensuse has such as system ).
> However, this requires massive amount of time to even port it to
> Gentoo let alone create it from scratch. This could be an interesting
> idea for a GSOC project (provided the infrastructure is already in
> place ) but this is what I call "a non-realistic solution" :)

This would fit in the idea of automated testing that we've talked about
before.
About the openSuSE testing platform, from what I saw at FOSDEM, I doubt
it will help us much as it seems to rely on graphical fingerprints.

- -- 
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=H7qU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Tim Harder]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1471 bytes --]

On 2011-08-06 Sat 08:58, Markos Chandras wrote:
> > I wonder if we can't set up an automated system where a package 
> > maintainer goes to a webpage and enters the package they'd like to 
> > submit for a keyword request. The page would display the
> > requirements for each architecture, and the maintainer could then
> > start a test build that would run on the development boxes in a
> > testing chroot, and then give the results back to the maintainer.
> > That would certainly make the situation simpler for everyone.
> > Maybe that's deserving of a separation thread.
>
> This would be the best ( afaik opensuse has such as system ). However,
> this requires massive amount of time to even port it to Gentoo let alone
> create it from scratch. This could be an interesting idea for a GSOC
> project (provided the infrastructure is already in place ) but this is
> what I call "a non-realistic solution" :)

I think such a system or even just some sort of reproducible tinderbox
setup (in order to start with something simpler) would be great to try
running on the Supercell setup [1] at the OSL like I mentioned awhile
back [2] on the dev list.

If people are interested I can try to get the ball rolling and see if
Gentoo can get access to some of the hardware now that most of the
infrastructure is in place.

Tim

[1]: http://supercell.osuosl.org/
[2]: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_cd3bd6dec446e53d183d41ad8b395ad8.xml

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 2:16 AM, Tim Harder <radhermit@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I think such a system or even just some sort of reproducible tinderbox
> setup (in order to start with something simpler) would be great to try
> running on the Supercell setup [1] at the OSL like I mentioned awhile
> back [2] on the dev list.

That certainly sounds useful.  Actually, I'd be interested in a
reproducible tinderbox setup that could be run anywhere.  Right now
there is really no "Gentoo Tinderbox Howto" that I can see, though
clearly one or two devs have built them.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

["Paweł Hajdan, Jr."]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 604 bytes --]

On 8/5/11 6:54 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> My point is how fast and how flexible can a committee like this decide
> on global project issues

It's not only about a decision. Enforcing a decision in an open source
project is not always trivial. What if you make a decision but don't
have manpower to implement it? Or people just don't want to follow?

I think that's also an important factor, and having a good plan how to
deal with those issues is also important. DevRel?

By the way, a lot of work can be done by projects, and it doesn't need
council (maybe for the final rubber stamp).


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 194 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 08/05/2011 05:33 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> On 8/5/11 6:54 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> My point is how fast and how flexible can a committee like this
>> decide on global project issues
> 
> It's not only about a decision. Enforcing a decision in an open
> source project is not always trivial. What if you make a decision but
> don't have manpower to implement it? Or people just don't want to
> follow?

If you make a decision that is not realistic then you failed as a
leader, but you will probably success as a politician.

> By the way, a lot of work can be done by projects, and it doesn't
> need council (maybe for the final rubber stamp).
> 
Yes of course. But the council is the one which gets to decide for
inter-project solutions and other global issues.

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
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=aj5g
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 740 bytes --]

On 15:44 Fri 05 Aug     , Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 05-08-2011 14:17:29 +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
> > I am still not convinced that a committee of 7 people is flexible 
> > enough to push radical changes.
> 
> Perhaps I misunderstand you here, but I don't think making radical 
> changes is good, that's what 7 people balance out.  Radical changes 
> have been made to important parts of Gentoo like e.g. Python, and this 
> didn't really result in a major improvement, IMO.

And isn't it sad that's the only radical change that comes to mind? No 
risk, no reward, but not everything you try will succeed.

-- 
Thanks,
Donnie

Donnie Berkholz
Council Member / Sr. Developer
Gentoo Linux
Blog: http://dberkholz.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]