[gentoo-project] Clarify language of GLEP 39

[gentoo-project] Clarify language of GLEP 39

[Doug Freed]

GLEP 39 currently states that "[A project] may have one or many leads"
(Specification section, first list, last item).  I believe (and a few
others agree) that this language is ambiguous,  Some projects have
interpreted this language to mean that a project may have no lead,
while others believe the language is to be interpreted as meaning that
projects must have at least one lead.  Therefore, I request that the
Council clarify the language of GLEP 39 to remove this ambiguity.  I
offer up the following choices as possible replacements (though feel
free to come up with your own):

"It must have at least one lead, and may have many leads.  The leads
are selected by the members of the project.  This selection must occur
at least once every 12 months, and may occur at any time."

OR (if the Council wishes to allow no lead as an option)

"It may have no lead, one lead, or many leads, and the leads are
selected by the members of the project.  This selection must occur at
least once every 12 months, and may occur at any time."

(The slight change in wording in otherwise unaffected parts is to
avoid repetitive use of "and" in one sentence.)  The reason for the
ambiguity in the first place is that the English language allows you
to apply the "may" to the collective "one or many leads," which would
make any lead optional.  Others consider it to just be a choice
between "one lead" and "many leads," which is also a valid
interpretation.

I believe that the original intention was that every project would
have a lead (indeed, in GLEP 4, which GLEP 39 replaced, every project
had a manager, which is the equivalent), but I don't speak for the
authors of GLEP 39.  It is my personal opinion that every project
should have a lead.  The lead serves to resolve disputes among project
members, coordinate project effort, and be the point of contact
between the project and the rest of Gentoo, all on an as-needed basis.

-Doug
dwfreed

Re: [gentoo-project] Clarify language of GLEP 39

[Rich Freeman]

On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 9:17 PM, Doug Freed <dwfreed@mtu.edu> wrote:
> GLEP 39 currently states that "[A project] may have one or many leads"
> (Specification section, first list, last item).  I believe (and a few
> others agree) that this language is ambiguous,  Some projects have
> interpreted this language to mean that a project may have no lead,
> while others believe the language is to be interpreted as meaning that
> projects must have at least one lead.  Therefore, I request that the
> Council clarify the language of GLEP 39 to remove this ambiguity.  I
> offer up the following choices as possible replacements (though feel
> free to come up with your own):
>
> "It must have at least one lead, and may have many leads.  The leads
> are selected by the members of the project.  This selection must occur
> at least once every 12 months, and may occur at any time."
>
> OR (if the Council wishes to allow no lead as an option)
>
> "It may have no lead, one lead, or many leads, and the leads are
> selected by the members of the project.  This selection must occur at
> least once every 12 months, and may occur at any time."
>

I'll let dilfridge add it to the next agenda.

In case it is useful, this topic was discussed [1,2], but this
particular point was not the subject of a vote.  I do note that the
wiki now lists the date of the last election on the project template,
per the decision (thanks!).

Personally, I think that leads can be helpful, but I don't see a need
to force a team to elect one just for the sake of process.  I do think
that if a project is without a lead any project member can call for an
election (obviously not repeatedly if the project members decide not
to have one).

Besides, that leaves us with what to do about the failure to elect a
lead.  If a team is working well together it seems silly to force it
to disband simply because they didn't elect a lead.  My feeling is
that necessity is the mother of invention, and if a team needs
somebody to handle disputes they'll tend to pick one, and likewise if
somebody wants to step up and drive the project in some direction
they'll probably throw the hat in the ring.  If a project is dead then
it should be cleaned up, of course, unless it is useful simply has an
administrative device (parent project to organize subprojects, useful
way to group packages, etc).

In any case, discussion is welcome before the next Council meeting.

1 - https://projects.gentoo.org/council/meeting-logs/20150913-summary.txt
2 - https://projects.gentoo.org/council/meeting-logs/20150913.txt

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Clarify language of GLEP 39

[Gokturk Yuksek]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1183 bytes --]

Doug Freed:
> GLEP 39 currently states that "[A project] may have one or many leads"
> (Specification section, first list, last item).  I believe (and a few
> others agree) that this language is ambiguous,  Some projects have
> interpreted this language to mean that a project may have no lead,
> while others believe the language is to be interpreted as meaning that
> projects must have at least one lead.  Therefore, I request that the
> Council clarify the language of GLEP 39 to remove this ambiguity.  I

The council has already provided a clarification[0]:

"""
The wording of GLEP 39 was found to be unclear if not confusing (it
states that a project "may have one or many leads", and that their
selection "must occur at least once every 12 months").

After discussion the following points were agreed upon:
* The Gentoo Wiki project page template should be enhanced to show the
  last lead election date for each project.
* The council sends an e-mail to the gentoo-project mailing list asking
  projects to consider electing a lead and confirming her/him regularly.
"""

[0] https://projects.gentoo.org/council/meeting-logs/20150913-summary.txt



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 455 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Clarify language of GLEP 39

[Doug Freed]

On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 10:40 PM, Gokturk Yuksek <gokturk@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Doug Freed:
>> GLEP 39 currently states that "[A project] may have one or many leads"
>> (Specification section, first list, last item).  I believe (and a few
>> others agree) that this language is ambiguous,  Some projects have
>> interpreted this language to mean that a project may have no lead,
>> while others believe the language is to be interpreted as meaning that
>> projects must have at least one lead.  Therefore, I request that the
>> Council clarify the language of GLEP 39 to remove this ambiguity.  I
>
> The council has already provided a clarification[0]:
>
> """
> The wording of GLEP 39 was found to be unclear if not confusing (it
> states that a project "may have one or many leads", and that their
> selection "must occur at least once every 12 months").
>
> After discussion the following points were agreed upon:
> * The Gentoo Wiki project page template should be enhanced to show the
>   last lead election date for each project.
> * The council sends an e-mail to the gentoo-project mailing list asking
>   projects to consider electing a lead and confirming her/him regularly.
> """
>
> [0] https://projects.gentoo.org/council/meeting-logs/20150913-summary.txt
>
>

As rich0 points out, there was no vote on the subject of the language
clarification.  In the raw log of that meeting, a few council members
noted the ambiguity themselves, and that it should probably be
resolved, but that was never done.  Therefore, I'm specifically asking
the council to remove the ambiguity in the language and pick one clear
meaning.  The actual actions taken in that meeting are only
tangentially related to that.

-Doug
dwfreed

Re: [gentoo-project] Clarify language of GLEP 39

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 495 bytes --]

>>>>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2017, Doug Freed wrote:

> Therefore, I'm specifically asking the council to remove the
> ambiguity in the language and pick one clear meaning.

The council has no jurisdiction over GLEP 39 and cannot change its
wording. GLEP 39 defines our metastructure, including the council
itself, and was approved by an all devs vote.

It was published as a GLEP only because at the time that was the most
convenient format (note that the type of the GLEP is "informational").

Ulrich

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

Re: [gentoo-project] Clarify language of GLEP 39

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 4:10 AM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2017, Doug Freed wrote:
>
>> Therefore, I'm specifically asking the council to remove the
>> ambiguity in the language and pick one clear meaning.
>
> The council has no jurisdiction over GLEP 39 and cannot change its
> wording. GLEP 39 defines our metastructure, including the council
> itself, and was approved by an all devs vote.
>

While this thought did occur to me, the topic seems trivial enough
that it would be silly to have a constitutional crisis over it.  All
the deliberations over the Trustees/Council/SPI stuff might fall into
that category, but what to do over projects that lack a lead?

And if we did decide that we don't want to touch it, that basically
leaves us in a de facto situation where projects don't need to elect a
lead, since GLEP39 did not make any provisions for enforcing that
requirement, and heaven forbid somebody take the initiative to come up
with one because GLEP39...  :)

However, I don't think we need to revise GLEP39 so much as point out
how it has been working in practice, comment on it, or clarify its
meaning.  I suppose if somebody else takes strong objection they can
lead the constitutional rebellion.  :)

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Clarify language of GLEP 39

[Aaron Bauman]

On Sunday, January 15, 2017 9:28:17 PM JST, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 4:10 AM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2017, Doug Freed wrote:
>> 
>>> Therefore, I'm specifically asking the council to remove the
>>> ambiguity in the language and pick one clear meaning.
>> 
>> The council has no jurisdiction over GLEP 39 and cannot change its
>> wording. GLEP 39 defines our metastructure, including the council
>> itself, and was approved by an all devs vote.
>> 
>
> While this thought did occur to me, the topic seems trivial enough
> that it would be silly to have a constitutional crisis over it.  All
> the deliberations over the Trustees/Council/SPI stuff might fall into
> that category, but what to do over projects that lack a lead?
>
> And if we did decide that we don't want to touch it, that basically
> leaves us in a de facto situation where projects don't need to elect a

So, I am not quite sure what you mean by whether the council gets to 
"decide" if they want to touch the topic or not.  You don't really have a 
choice in the matter.  Ulrich's facts were quite clear.

Are you under the delusion that you and the council get to choose such 
things?

It seems the developer community at large may need to revisit and vote on 
such a change for GLEP39.  Assuming it is deemed important enough to 
pursue.

> lead, since GLEP39 did not make any provisions for enforcing that
> requirement, and heaven forbid somebody take the initiative to come up
> with one because GLEP39...  :)
>
> However, I don't think we need to revise GLEP39 so much as point out
> how it has been working in practice, comment on it, or clarify its
> meaning.  I suppose if somebody else takes strong objection they can
> lead the constitutional rebellion.  :)
>

Re: [gentoo-project] Clarify language of GLEP 39

[Ciaran McCreesh]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 21:58:03 +0900
Aaron Bauman <bman@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sunday, January 15, 2017 9:28:17 PM JST, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 4:10 AM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org>
> > wrote:  
> >>>>>>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2017, Doug Freed wrote:  
> >>   
> >>> Therefore, I'm specifically asking the council to remove the
> >>> ambiguity in the language and pick one clear meaning.  
> >> 
> >> The council has no jurisdiction over GLEP 39 and cannot change its
> >> wording. GLEP 39 defines our metastructure, including the council
> >> itself, and was approved by an all devs vote.
> >>   
> >
> > While this thought did occur to me, the topic seems trivial enough
> > that it would be silly to have a constitutional crisis over it.  All
> > the deliberations over the Trustees/Council/SPI stuff might fall
> > into that category, but what to do over projects that lack a lead?
> >
> > And if we did decide that we don't want to touch it, that basically
> > leaves us in a de facto situation where projects don't need to
> > elect a  
> 
> So, I am not quite sure what you mean by whether the council gets to 
> "decide" if they want to touch the topic or not.  You don't really
> have a choice in the matter.  Ulrich's facts were quite clear.
> 
> Are you under the delusion that you and the council get to choose
> such things?
> 
> It seems the developer community at large may need to revisit and
> vote on such a change for GLEP39.  Assuming it is deemed important
> enough to pursue.

The Council has already amended GLEP 39 without a wider vote... What
makes you think they can't decide to do so again?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

Re: [gentoo-project] Clarify language of GLEP 39

[Aaron Bauman]

On Sunday, January 15, 2017 10:00:34 PM JST, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 21:58:03 +0900
> Aaron Bauman <bman@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> On Sunday, January 15, 2017 9:28:17 PM JST, Rich Freeman wrote: ...
>
> The Council has already amended GLEP 39 without a wider vote... What
> makes you think they can't decide to do so again?
>

Which specific amendment was this?

Re: [gentoo-project] Clarify language of GLEP 39

[Ciaran McCreesh]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 22:13:50 +0900
Aaron Bauman <bman@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sunday, January 15, 2017 10:00:34 PM JST, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 21:58:03 +0900
> > Aaron Bauman <bman@gentoo.org> wrote:  
> >> On Sunday, January 15, 2017 9:28:17 PM JST, Rich Freeman
> >> wrote: ...  
> >
> > The Council has already amended GLEP 39 without a wider vote... What
> > makes you think they can't decide to do so again?
> >  
> 
> Which specific amendment was this?

As I'm sure you know from your careful reading of GLEP 39, it's the one
that's mentioned right at the start of GLEP 39...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

Re: [gentoo-project] Clarify language of GLEP 39

[Aaron Bauman]

On Sunday, January 15, 2017 10:19:33 PM JST, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 22:13:50 +0900
> Aaron Bauman <bman@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> On Sunday, January 15, 2017 10:00:34 PM JST, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: ...
>
> As I'm sure you know from your careful reading of GLEP 39, it's the one
> that's mentioned right at the start of GLEP 39...
>

Oh, that one!  The one that says "council amended..."  You got me, Ciaran.

Re: [gentoo-project] Clarify language of GLEP 39

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 397 bytes --]

>>>>> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

>> Which specific amendment was this?

> As I'm sure you know from your careful reading of GLEP 39, it's the
> one that's mentioned right at the start of GLEP 39...

"Add the one person one vote clause to GLEP 39 as agreed." says the
commit message. Was that a council decision? Because I cannot find it
in any council meeting's summary.

Ulrich

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

Re: [gentoo-project] Clarify language of GLEP 39

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 7:58 AM, Aaron Bauman <bman@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> It seems the developer community at large may need to revisit and vote on
> such a change for GLEP39.  Assuming it is deemed important enough to pursue.
>

Nobody is going to organize such an action over a matter this trivial.
I'm not saying they can't, just that I'd be shocked if it happened.

And hence my point that deciding not to take any action is effectively
a decision that leads are not necessary, since nobody is empowered to
actually do anything over the lack of a lead.  And that suits me fine
anyway.

I did clearly state that I didn't think the Council should change the
wording of GLEP39.  It would merely clarify what it means.  And
obviously it would take into account any opinions expressed by the
developer community at large.

On a side note, I think there is far too much tendency in these
debates to hold ourselves to decisions made a long time ago by
entirely different people.  When big issues come up people ask
questions like "what did those people who only a few of us even have
ever talked to mean when they wrote xyz" or "what would Daniel do" and
so on.  While sometimes understanding historical perspective can be
useful I don't consider ourselves bound by it.  Ultimately how we
govern ourselves today is up to the developers of today.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Clarify language of GLEP 39

[Aaron Bauman]

On Sunday, January 15, 2017 10:15:32 PM JST, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 7:58 AM, Aaron Bauman <bman@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> 
>> It seems the developer community at large may need to revisit and vote on
>> such a change for GLEP39.  Assuming it is deemed important 
>> enough to pursue.
>> 
>
> Nobody is going to organize such an action over a matter this trivial.
> I'm not saying they can't, just that I'd be shocked if it happened.
>
> And hence my point that deciding not to take any action is effectively
> a decision that leads are not necessary, since nobody is empowered to
> actually do anything over the lack of a lead.  And that suits me fine
> anyway.
>
> I did clearly state that I didn't think the Council should change the
> wording of GLEP39.  It would merely clarify what it means.  And
> obviously it would take into account any opinions expressed by the
> developer community at large.
>

I am not really sure what all the fluff is about, but I simply asked a yes 
or no question.  More plainly, do you really think the council has 
jurisdiction over GLEP39?

> On a side note, I think there is far too much tendency in these
> debates to hold ourselves to decisions made a long time ago by
> entirely different people.  When big issues come up people ask
> questions like "what did those people who only a few of us even have
> ever talked to mean when they wrote xyz" or "what would Daniel do" and
> so on.  While sometimes understanding historical perspective can be
> useful I don't consider ourselves bound by it.  Ultimately how we
> govern ourselves today is up to the developers of today.
>

Re: [gentoo-project] Clarify language of GLEP 39

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Aaron Bauman <bman@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> I am not really sure what all the fluff is about, but I simply asked a yes
> or no question.  More plainly, do you really think the council has
> jurisdiction over GLEP39?
>

Honestly, I think my answer to that one is that it isn't really clear,
and as a result I think it is something best steered clear of.  I
won't argue that it doesn't have jurisdiction, but I wouldn't act as
if it does at least as far as the Council's own role is concerned.
That's just my opinion.  The Council might have a different one, and
if GLEP39 wants to post his own opinion on the matter I'm certainly
interested in it.  :)

I just wanted to use this as an opportunity to just point something
out: there aren't a lot of us.

Ultimately what brings us together as part of Gentoo is an interest in
source-based distros and the choices that they afford us, and the way
Gentoo in particular makes it practical to exercise our choices.
Unfortunately just this simple focus makes Gentoo a very small
community to start with.  Some question whether it is even
sustainable, though I might point out that we probably support more
arch choices than virtually any other distro out there.  How many
support mips, ia64, sparc, and alpha still?  :)

Now, if you want to make the other choice, having a binary distro,
that still leaves you with about 50 other choices you can make and
still have a sustainable distro that meets your particular niche.  You
can have the binary distro that is FOSS-only.  You can have the binary
distro that puts pragmatism above all.  You can have the binary distro
that will run the same ELF for 10+ years with security updates.  You
can have the binary distro built around your favorite DE.  You can
have the binary distro that sticks to upstream.  You can have the
binary distro where everybody loves systemd, or the binary distro
where everybody hates systemd.

Long ago there weren't so many distros out there.  Most of them forked
because the community became split on some specific detail, or enough
people realized that a bunch of people had a particular need and it
was viable to make a distro to cater to it.

So, it isn't surprising to me that we end up having a lot of internal
debates over all this stuff.  If we were a popular binary distro we'd
probably just split up and form two popular binary distros over many
of these debates, and people would choose their side, and everybody
would probably be happier as a result.  Unfortunately the number of
people who want to run a source-based distro and are strict
constitutional constructionists probably isn't enough to be a viable
distro.  The number of people who want a source-based distro and are
SJWs on the side probably isn't enough to be viable.  The number of
people who want a source-based distro and don't want to have any kind
of CoC probably aren't viable.  And so on.

And thus we muddle on, trying to find the middle road as best we can,
not so much pleasing everybody, but trying not to displease everybody.
We're forced to be a "big tent" so sometimes you just need to wear
your deodorant...

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Clarify language of GLEP 39

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1106 bytes --]

>>>>> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017, Rich Freeman wrote:

>> I am not really sure what all the fluff is about, but I simply
>> asked a yes or no question. More plainly, do you really think the
>> council has jurisdiction over GLEP39?

> Honestly, I think my answer to that one is that it isn't really clear,
> and as a result I think it is something best steered clear of.  I
> won't argue that it doesn't have jurisdiction, but I wouldn't act as
> if it does at least as far as the Council's own role is concerned.
> That's just my opinion.  The Council might have a different one, and
> if GLEP39 wants to post his own opinion on the matter I'm certainly
> interested in it.  :)

In fact, the council has already clarified its opinion on the matter
in a previous decision:

   * 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.

https://projects.gentoo.org/council/meeting-logs/20110715-summary.txt

Ulrich

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

Re: [gentoo-project] Clarify language of GLEP 39

[Seemant Kulleen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2021 bytes --]

Happy New Year Doug (et al ;) ),

I wanted to share an observation:

"It must have at least one lead, and may have many leads.  The leads
> are selected by the members of the project.  This selection must occur
> at least once every 12 months, and may occur at any time.
>

If a project has n members, and by vote or policy or whatever, the team may
decides
that all n members are leads.  In that case, I opine that the project has
no leads.


> OR (if the Council wishes to allow no lead as an option)
>
> "It may have no lead, one lead, or many leads, and the leads are
> selected by the members of the project.  This selection must occur at
> least once every 12 months, and may occur at any time."
>

6 up there, half a dozen here, and a pair of 3's already in the current
language.

Seems like a hard to avoid situation.  I guess my question is: are the
lead-less teams
experiencing particular challenges?

Cheers,
Seemant





> (The slight change in wording in otherwise unaffected parts is to
> avoid repetitive use of "and" in one sentence.)  The reason for the
> ambiguity in the first place is that the English language allows you
> to apply the "may" to the collective "one or many leads," which would
> make any lead optional.  Others consider it to just be a choice
> between "one lead" and "many leads," which is also a valid
> interpretation.
>
> I believe that the original intention was that every project would
> have a lead (indeed, in GLEP 4, which GLEP 39 replaced, every project
> had a manager, which is the equivalent), but I don't speak for the
> authors of GLEP 39.  It is my personal opinion that every project
> should have a lead.  The lead serves to resolve disputes among project
> members, coordinate project effort, and be the point of contact
> between the project and the rest of Gentoo, all on an as-needed basis.
>
> -Doug
> dwfreed
>
>

Cheers,
Seemant

*--*
*Oakland Finish Up Weekend*
Be Amazed.  Be Amazing.
Get Mentored | Get Inspired | *Finish* *Up*
http://oaklandfinishup.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3099 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Clarify language of GLEP 39

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1421 bytes --]

On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 20:58:04 -0800
Seemant Kulleen <seemantk@gmail.com> wrote:

> "It must have at least one lead, and may have many leads.  The leads
> > are selected by the members of the project.  This selection must occur
> > at least once every 12 months, and may occur at any time.
> >  
> 
> If a project has n members, and by vote or policy or whatever, the team may
> decides
> that all n members are leads.  In that case, I opine that the project has
> no leads.

Exactly the point I wanted to make. If everyone can be lead, then
no-load is pretty much equivalent here.

> > OR (if the Council wishes to allow no lead as an option)
> >
> > "It may have no lead, one lead, or many leads, and the leads are
> > selected by the members of the project.  This selection must occur at
> > least once every 12 months, and may occur at any time."
> >  
> 
> 6 up there, half a dozen here, and a pair of 3's already in the current
> language.
> 
> Seems like a hard to avoid situation.  I guess my question is: are the
> lead-less teams
> experiencing particular challenges?

Well, the proxy-maint team has been harassed multiple times about not
having a defined lead. For no specific reason, except:

a. some people claiming it is against GLEP 39,

b. ex-lead claiming the team is not run properly without him.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 963 bytes --]