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 DD5451382C5 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 01:55:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BAE4FE091B; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 01:55:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ed1-x531.google.com (mail-ed1-x531.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::531]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71016E0908 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 01:55:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ed1-x531.google.com with SMTP id c35so6229790edf.5 for ; Thu, 04 Jun 2020 18:55:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gentoo-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=tnGCFwaVYGZGTppCR688P9YyIlQPQHJpk5lEcpzKfWQ=; b=GPHzrX31gJNSaG+ndm8u/1iQrQL3oYw2KiOCJGJ02gqoqk0qKfHl/E1IaBU3duSCPy zfILB0cG3zr4ZpCHcOYA3cTne0Fob7cUP2G2A14Aw2q9h2hDb017PA2z4wgxdGa/vHN+ i25O3VtQP3aaiKxrHSGZ0xKoLli3zGw6UePvBTPk8Q3HapFYzWKvlfFAVp5XDox8QZxL zrisOMN7BpIxgjvHYjs16oC9QROgo2vapvSlmwbD/RqpCDe8jiJIHCqYDrzUjmoi6fSj 41AXH3vWkjOmr20w6jket309hJ1+Mewhjr+Rp0c+pvii5/2h2gpIRowbJt+HxxpiP/E5 8+SA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=tnGCFwaVYGZGTppCR688P9YyIlQPQHJpk5lEcpzKfWQ=; b=ritLei0fNv/QYb777xM7tH0b1ywiOs6n1BxwnSSRMrOz5nANLarYAfrhERTePoUuVh JCf+dXnJTTWthlV0nPC84LWX/z57CxU8tGbqACE1E6y+xHz1BDpxnuxRL0Syn/k3yk44 vPzgcTQ8YGEE2hYOS1yh8Mx0Nyr9GNsGcj3afSGTvd44wHoWN6jXCY0GH+2hMiFSzQQ5 xZoNrlebfkJuVG5q0X/tX/tkD9GzZNNygCMp3tVepzDuXCMRusmka19/Mlfl/hTCP5Tv 9pXOGNKk8nbY3BBjvh9wfnylaOV6fYzCHHpKkPTj9BX0t56s4sa84r0K1X1FHllx1X1V gepA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531QCgkWMnM+wW5VgAEFpN/O2fEcrHhMY6UObe+zXdlrce5b5mIC 9xj2y7gfKCE71cMY1joir/W96NrL+G6on4g4pL8J39e0 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwgY6vWT/KRVRD+baRH5gr6bF+NipYco2c7S89AbO0CJ8kMJuzzwSSj5XpKWXHySK+RVtZV8nJOLM/utl0SIyY= X-Received: by 2002:a50:a0e5:: with SMTP id 92mr7246922edo.313.1591322154296; Thu, 04 Jun 2020 18:55:54 -0700 (PDT) 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 X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <31f6f5b574e0818a8fca3549e696ea18793c22ab.camel@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <31f6f5b574e0818a8fca3549e696ea18793c22ab.camel@gentoo.org> From: Alec Warner Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2020 18:55:43 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Triumvirate in Gentoo To: gentoo-project Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bb00b005a74c8f0c" X-Archives-Salt: 02478f9d-c70d-4e6f-b3ba-f4e4b7122cc4 X-Archives-Hash: 895ed8dd3503d47db3ec66c71acbd499 --000000000000bb00b005a74c8f0c Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 12:30 AM Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny = wrote: > Hello, everyone. > > This is something I wanted to discuss back in April but due to the peak > of covid pandemic I've delayed it. Today things seem to be improving > a bit, at least in Europe, so I'd like to bring it up now, especially > with the elections coming soon. > > > 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. > > Is Gentoo being popular a goal? How does the current structure prevent anything? I think the existing leadership is not very proactive (in both bodies.) Often the leadership is focussed on adjudication (someone raises an issue, leaders consider and issue a judgement, issue is resolved / shelved.) I don't see either body putting forth a vision for Gentoo, nor leading in what I'd expect would be a more top-down fashion (perhaps necessary to implement any vision.) I'm curious to hear more about this; is this lack of vision a lack of remit? Or is it just too hard? Or no one is interested in a vision? > 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. > > 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. > > 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?). > I seem to recall that decision being undone by a later council, so I think the right thing happened in the end ;) > Compromises are sometimes good and sometimes horrible. If one dev wants > to paint the bikeshed red and another one blue, mixings the two colors > doesn't really get either what he wants. You just get a third color > that nobody is happy with, and in the best case you could say that > neither of them got what he wanted. > "A really good compromise is the one that leaves both sides equally dissatisfied." (see below) > > BDFL is not a perfect solution either. While having one has the obvious > advantage of having a single consistent vision for the distribution, > giving absolute power to a single person creates a fair risk of abuse. > This is not something most of Gentoo devs would agree to. > I don't think a BFDL is a necessary condition for a vision. Let's have a hypothetical where in the existing system someone proposes a broad vision for Gentoo and its ratified by all leadership bodies. What effect might that have on developers whose work is not compatible? Would they no longer contribute; and is that a thing that we want? Part of the benefit of the compromise model is that you compromise because both sides have something to offer and you want to come to some mutually beneficial arrangement. Typically in Gentoo it means we have fairly loose development to facilitate a broad base of developers. If we tighten up our development process we may lose people who are not on board (because the compromise is no longer facilitating their contributions.) > > > All that said, I'd propose to meet in the middle -- following > the ancient tradition, establish a triumvirate in Gentoo. It would be: > > 1. Technical lead -- a person with exceptional technical talents that > would build the vision of Gentoo from technical perspective, i.e. make > a distribution that people would love using. Initially, this role could > be taken by the QA lead. > > 2. Social lead -- a person with exceptional social skills that would > build the vision of Gentoo from community perspective, i.e. make > a distribution that people would love contributing to. Initially, this > role would taken by the ComRel lead. > > 3. Organization lead -- a person with (exceptional) business skills that > would take care of all the financial and organizational aspects of > Gentoo, i.e. make a distribution that sustains. Initially, this role > would be taken by the Foundation president. > > Three seems to be a very good number -- on one hand, it's more than one, > so the others can stop any single one from getting absolute power. > 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). > I think you still need that 3 member triumvirate to practice a *lot* of delegation in order to lead a 100+ person project. This is something we could do a lot better at. -A > > > WDYT? > > -- > Best regards, > Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny > > --000000000000bb00b005a74c8f0c Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 12:30 AM Micha=C5= =82 G=C3=B3rny <m= gorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
Hello, everyone.

This is something I wanted to discuss back in April but due to the peak
of covid pandemic I've delayed it.=C2=A0 Today things seem to be improv= ing
a bit, at least in Europe, so I'd like to bring it up now, especially with the elections coming soon.


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.=C2=A0 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.


Is Gentoo being popular a goal? How do= es the current structure prevent anything?

I think= the existing leadership is not very proactive (in both bodies.) Often the = leadership is focussed on adjudication (someone raises an issue, leaders co= nsider and issue a judgement, issue is resolved / shelved.) I don't see= either body putting forth a vision for Gentoo, nor leading in what I'd= expect would be a more top-down fashion (perhaps necessary to implement an= y vision.) I'm curious to hear more about this; is this lack of vision = a lack of remit? Or is it just too hard? Or no one is interested in a visio= n?
=C2=A0
Firstly, we have two leading bodies and still no clear distinction
between their roles.=C2=A0 Some developers agree on split being here, some<= br> developers put it elsewhere but in the end, nothing has been really
decided.=C2=A0 From time to time one of the bodies tries to push their bord= er
forward, then backs down and we're back where we started.

Secondly, for historical reasons the both bodies are elected by two
electorates that only partially overlap.=C2=A0 Surely, today the overlap is=
reasonable but is there any real reason for different people to elect
both bodies?=C2=A0 In the end, it is entirely possible for one body to
arbitrarily change their electorate and made it completely disjoint.

Thirdly, large governing bodies don't really work.=C2=A0 Instead of hav= ing
one consistent vision of Gentoo, we have 12.=C2=A0 What we get is a semi- random combination of parts of their visions that just happened to hit
majority in their votes.=C2=A0 It gets absurd to the point that a body can<= br> make half-way decisions just because first half passed vote
and the second didn't (remember closing -dev but leaving -project
open?).

I seem to recall that decision = being undone by a later council, so I think the right thing happened in the= end ;)


Compromises are sometimes good and sometimes horrible.=C2=A0 If one dev wan= ts
to paint the bikeshed red and another one blue, mixings the two colors
doesn't really get either what he wants.=C2=A0 You just get a third col= or
that nobody is happy with, and in the best case you could say that
neither of them got what he wanted.

"A = really good compromise is the one that leaves both sides equally dissatisfi= ed." (see below)

=


All that said, I'd propose to meet in the middle -- following
the ancient tradition, establish a triumvirate in Gentoo.=C2=A0 It would be= :

1. Technical lead -- a person with exceptional technical talents that
would build the vision of Gentoo from technical perspective, i.e. make
a distribution that people would love using.=C2=A0 Initially, this role cou= ld
be taken by the QA lead.

2. Social lead -- a person with exceptional social skills that would
build the vision of Gentoo from community perspective, i.e. make
a distribution that people would love contributing to.=C2=A0 Initially, thi= s
role would taken by the ComRel lead.

3. Organization lead -- a person with (exceptional) business skills that would take care of all the financial and organizational aspects of
Gentoo, i.e. make a distribution that sustains.=C2=A0 Initially, this role<= br> would be taken by the Foundation president.

Three seems to be a very good number -- on one hand, it's more than one= ,
so the others can stop any single one from getting absolute power.
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).

<= div>I think you still need that 3 member triumvirate to practice a *lot* of= delegation in order to lead a 100+ person project. This is something we co= uld do a lot better at.

-A
=C2=A0
<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-l= eft:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">

WDYT?

--
Best regards,
Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny

--000000000000bb00b005a74c8f0c--