From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3AE4F138330 for ; Thu, 6 Oct 2016 07:15:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 81D82E0AB3; Thu, 6 Oct 2016 07:15:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pa0-f45.google.com (mail-pa0-f45.google.com [209.85.220.45]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 26537E0A9D for ; Thu, 6 Oct 2016 07:15:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pa0-f45.google.com with SMTP id ry6so5464975pac.3 for ; Thu, 06 Oct 2016 00:15:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:subject:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:mime-version; bh=McpMMo06mzkey/1KKpJkdG6vHn+pCsRhw7Ii4F4xqfI=; b=PK1M8Zj5CdTfKGs/8jdiJ0e7DbwlTASjln4IAVbjGobjQ68tqE+kurNS4zPe8qxMqy 3OVZ3aIHpDH3RvlWrVhLylIEa3TVioHRF/3Sn+2ZyzQQoIVWFO+wNeW0y+epAHvkNXL8 OR+RIy2Z0+0TA8PCztYgGIMUsdDDfgVwLJMh8ZSD9q8tQkGZ0Hdv8bJ0Z0JXJPg4E4S6 9p1zTmtlZeaRse3JVqVXg4t7AWvMPSXZS2PkHbi2fSneoNBUqCAJ+pPVvR0/hVND+bI9 5Rsc273BDXSM3P0M2/AmGOai546/UA1BVxK3Fl55YlWoWRgEVKXb6aOsDODb1DjjzC+8 Iu/Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:subject:to:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version; bh=McpMMo06mzkey/1KKpJkdG6vHn+pCsRhw7Ii4F4xqfI=; b=OX1FM6FXZ6XoGZ6gLvzuy+XgSy0cSnAyh291EQRqSTezuNHM2ymgVnrda3dTiekN3K m/YL57oKL5PXIzLcGFE0KlyHNMAOcGqkA+SD5DFrykkRve7XZhD8yH8p3LCWsZrGPBtf 0z2EO6NVHvyjm91JY7jIq2+62bqZj495D4ap580pPKAJarTKHBRdgr7BFFZfawWzu8NC 9Qu3KicJwYzlebKNxP8Zbv5Kg8AZ5MnBvIxtduIiW6QyQRLo2jAo/mQ0xWPA3BakAW0m 3WshGFysBOZbXIC9pRBIt3AdGygdiZsNzNdVUWhyjbypsPEPWqOY7Ofnpmmag81AEXDN WD0Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RmOx9vj3jtQbI/k7fiCeVDkq2/VEyqMACbOBOrIry4/ifNkmdhV0BibxE4EAiCOcA== X-Received: by 10.67.7.39 with SMTP id cz7mr12625714pad.20.1475738102063; Thu, 06 Oct 2016 00:15:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.0.3] (66-191-43-18.static.snfr.nc.charter.com. [66.191.43.18]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t190sm2036613pfb.34.2016.10.06.00.15.01 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 06 Oct 2016 00:15:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2016 00:14:59 -0700 From: Raymond Jennings Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years... To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Message-Id: <1475738099.6637.1@smtp.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20161004004556.252e85b61b9987a35ac4e41e@gentoo.org> <1475532963.7361.9@smtp.gmail.com> X-Mailer: geary/0.11.1 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed X-Archives-Salt: 2347355a-e1f0-4c67-bfb2-79a889a8b50b X-Archives-Hash: b2874438656f43b29c0f617d63792d4d Yes, Gentoo is kinda democratic because the projects elect their own leads. Questions: 1. How to handle superprojects that are themselves composed of subprojects and may or may not have their own non-project members? Should the subprojects get to vote? If so, do we just count the votes of each project's lead (probably elected bottom up), or all the project's members? 2. If a project gets stagnant and "implodes into a ball of stiff stale tar" through complacency, should the gentoo developer community as a whole have veto power to be able to oust the lead? I'm kinda in favor of 2, just for the sake of keeping project leads accountable for making sure that the project exists to benefit gentoo as a whole. And it would work for any project that goes off course from the needs of the whole community...and not just "hot button" projects like comrel or whatever. IIRC we already have leads elected by the members of the project to have accountability to the project and the needs of its membres, but what about the accountability of the project to the gentoo community as a whole? Bosses and leads provide organization and structure and a clear path of responsibility. As for 1, I think that making a project part of another project...hmm...who decides that? On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Gregory Woodbury wrote: > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 6:16 PM, Raymond Jennings > wrote: >> >> The only comment I have right now... >> >> What if project leads were generally left in charge to run their >> projects as they see fit, but the gentoo developer community as a >> whole reserved the right to recall the lead if they don't like how >> the project is being managed? >> >> This would help with stagnant projects or the like or projects (such >> as the recent fight between games and council) that aren't >> responsive to the needs of the gentoo community. >> >> I like democracy, but who should the voters be? >> > > Well, that is, to me, a large part of the problem. > > The social/political structure of Gentoo is based on a status of > being an "accredited developer." Meaning that there are hoops to jump > through to prove that one has a sufficiently advanced technical > ability, and an ability to work within the rules. This restriction on > who gets a vote or not makes the situation into one of conservative > vs. progressive: restricted voting rights are associated with > corporate > cultures that are inherently conservative. They are often more > concerned > with maintaining a "status quo" than in moving forward. > > This is *exactly* what and why these conversations are taking place > here and now. > > > -- > G.Wolfe Woodbury > redwolfe@gmail.com