From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JyUqv-0005Wd-Rn for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 20 May 2008 16:38:18 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CD828E05A1; Tue, 20 May 2008 16:38:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vms173003pub.verizon.net (vms173003pub.verizon.net [206.46.173.3]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD4C1E05A1 for ; Tue, 20 May 2008 16:38:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gw.thefreemanclan.net ([68.162.74.227]) by vms173003.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0K16000LME2A64HQ@vms173003.mailsrvcs.net> for gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 20 May 2008 11:34:58 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gw.thefreemanclan.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C46E124189; Tue, 20 May 2008 12:37:49 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 12:37:49 -0400 From: Richard Freeman Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Leadership Structure In-reply-to: <4832A255.9050209@gentoo.org> To: "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" Cc: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Message-id: <4832FE5D.2060506@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit References: <48321161.1060901@gentoo.org> <4832A255.9050209@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080505) X-Archives-Salt: d744225c-5ac8-4973-aa78-9a8dc3e24333 X-Archives-Hash: b5060c4c0a92802127b91b8021aa5d17 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: > > I don't think our current problem was caused by not having a "council > leader". Also, current policy already states that 2 council members can > make a decision on urgent matters that needs to be ratified by the full > council at their next meeting. Some of my suggestions were based on my perception of some of Gentoo's longer-term issues. I'm not suggesting a solution merely to the current GLEP 39 debate - but what might be part of a framework for a longer-term direction for Gentoo. Many have brought up the idea that Gentoo tends to be a bit rudder-less - it can't take on bold initiatives that have any chance at all of being disruptive. It also can't really speak with "one voice" about anything. A lead role - even if it rotates - would at least give one person a chance to make some kind of a mark upon the distro, but with checks and balances. > > You're voicing the view that the Foundation should be nothing more than > a holder for IP and assets. That is not what it was created for, nor > should it be limited to that, imo. Also, you're changing the focus of > the council as it was created as a technical body that would steer the > technical advancement of the distro. > That is exactly what I'm advocating, but as long as both bodies represent the same constituency the division isn't entirely critical. However, as a legal body the trustees will never be able to act as effectively as the council - just due to the level of formality. Since we aren't a 10,000 employee corporation I don't know that we want so much red tape in day-to-day operations. > There are > also plans to open membership to the foundation to accept members of the > community, be them users, companies, sponsors, partners or any > interested party. > In that sense, the council would represent the developer "community", > whilst the foundation would represent the "community" at large. > I do think that this is potentially a very bad idea (and I do stress the word "potentially" - the devil is in the details). It has nothing to do with any desire to exclude the "community" - to the contrary I've tried to be vocal in general about the need to include users in more activities, and I strongly support the whole user-rel concept. My concern is that ultimately the devs need to implement any initiatives that Gentoo takes, so they need to be completely on-board. If some sponsor can essentially buy Foundation votes it could cause Gentoo to take a direction that most devs object to - which will just lead to a fork. It also lowers the barrier to Foundation membership a bit too much. Right now to be a member you must commit to at least a moderate amount of volunteer contribution, which weeds out people who are all about talk with absolutely no action. If ANYBODY could sign up and vote then you could have a lot of devs frustrated because the people in charge really don't consider the devs their constituents. I can't really think of any non-profit organization that operates in this way. Just about all of them limit legal membership to those who are heavily committed to the organization, and those who contribute significantly financially (and I'm not talking $5 per year via paypal). > | 3. Council will meet monthly, but any slacker policies will be at its > | own discretion. > > I wasn't around the time the council was created, but from the mails > those that were sent, it was a "conscious" choice and option from the > developer community to set those in. I'm not debating that here. I'm suggesting that the devs should make another "conscious" choice to get rid of this policy in favor of another system of accountability. > > If your purpose it to count only active devs for the number of sigs > needed, you need a better method. You're leaving out (or run the chance > of leaving out) all staff from that count. It might be better to > subtract to the total number of devs, the total that shows up in the > slacker script. > My concern is that if we're not careful we could end up with a count that reflects devs+staff on paper and not in reality - making it VERY hard to get the requisite number of sigs. The cvs commit metric is straightforward to measure and therefore a useful benchmark of the approximate size of the dev+staff community (as long as the ratio of dev:staff stays about the same then the number of active devs can be used to determine the total size regardless of what the ratio is). What I wanted to avoid is some really complex formula which nobody can work out in practice, or the need to have monthly purges of the rolls just in case somebody wants to have a referendum. > Although this process is somewhat lengthy and complex, we might need to > have a provision for it - for extraordinary circumstances. > If we try to institute it, we'll need to review a few clauses, though. > Couldn't agree more - this was really meant to simulate discussion around some possible directions Gentoo could take than to be something that could simply be enacted as-is or anything like that. With the Council and Trustees apparently discussing how they can handle their various roles in these kinds of situations, this could be good food for thought. I certainly don't expect any of this to be enacted, but if it influences any decision-making in a positive way then I'll be happy I could add something constructive... -- gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org mailing list