Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Triumvirate in Gentoo

[Aaron Bauman <bman@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3393 bytes --]

On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 09:15:37AM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello, everyone.
> 
> Gentoo is technically led by two bodies -- the Council and the Trustees.
> While this somewhat works for many years, people have repeatedly pointed
> out that it's far from perfect and that it is preventing Gentoo from
> gaining more popularity.  Some of them are looking into the times of
> BDFL with longing, others are considering it the worst thing ever. 
> Nevertheless, there are problems with the current state of things.
>

I do not recall any discussions on how the current model is impacting
popularity of the distro. I am not asking for evidence, but if this is
purely based around previous "power struggles" then I would agree.

> Firstly, we have two leading bodies and still no clear distinction
> between their roles.  Some developers agree on split being here, some
> developers put it elsewhere but in the end, nothing has been really
> decided.  From time to time one of the bodies tries to push their border
> forward, then backs down and we're back where we started.
> 

There have been struggles that I recall in the past with the foundation
attempting to over step it's bounds. As others have mentioned, this is
inevitable regardless of structure barring any BDFL like scenarios.

I have postulated that the current structure works and there are avenues
to codify distinct roles in the "two bodies." This can be done in the
by-laws.

Ultimately, the council runs the distro and the foundation ensures that
the distro is supported financially and legally. Pure and simple. The
Foundation has no play in technical matters or determining how the
council is to govern the distro (OFC, unless something bleeds over into
legal matters).

I am not speaking for Robin here, but I completely agree with his
approach for how infra interacts with the various entities within
Gentoo. This same "due diligence", based on role, is imperative for all to
understand regardless of personal opinion.

> Secondly, for historical reasons the both bodies are elected by two
> electorates that only partially overlap.  Surely, today the overlap is
> reasonable but is there any real reason for different people to elect
> both bodies?  In the end, it is entirely possible for one body to
> arbitrarily change their electorate and made it completely disjoint.
> 

This definitely must be fixed. I believe a decision to determine the
electorate should be made and it must be the same.

> Thirdly, large governing bodies don't really work.  Instead of having
> one consistent vision of Gentoo, we have 12.  What we get is a semi-
> random combination of parts of their visions that just happened to hit
> majority in their votes.  It gets absurd to the point that a body can
> make half-way decisions just because first half passed vote
> and the second didn't (remember closing -dev but leaving -project
> open?).
>

Assuming roles are clearly defined, I believe this point becomes moot.
Someone should own the ML's from a governing perspective.

> On the other, it's small enough for them to be able to actively work
> together and directly establish a common set of goals (i.e. via
> an agreement rather than a majority vote).
> 
>

Agree with others that this lowers the bar even more for a possible
takeover.

-- 
Cheers,
Aaron

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]