Re: [gentoo-project] Council nominations

[Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>]

On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 10:17 PM, Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I think nominations are open now, so I will nominate Rich Freeman, Petteri
> Räty, Ulrich Mueller, Samuli Suominen, Robin H. Johnson, Mike Frysinger, and
> Michał Górny in no particular order.

Honestly, I've been torn on this because I think the Trustees are a
vital role that at times in the past has been neglected, and if I'm
unable to take office as a Trustee we actually have fewer nominees
than positions at the moment.

However, I'm going to accept this nomination.  I don't think I can
offer so much criticism without at least offering the community the
chance to let me step up and try to do something about our problems.

The last year has been one of dealing with change for virtually every
distro.  We have everything from Systemd to Unity to MIR to Wayland to
Eudev on the horizon or even at our door, with platforms like Android
calling into question the very notion of a traditional Linux distro.
I think moreso than any other distro Gentoo is actually able to
embrace the opportunities while still offering something for those who
are happy with what they have.

For anybody reading lists the last few weeks it will be no shock that
I do advocate a change in the status quo when it comes to dealing with
CoC and such.  I definitely favor a much more activist Council.  That
said, I also grok the zen of minimal interference, and I don't think
that every problem is best solved with an official vote.  If elected I
won't be afraid to cast a vote to step in when I think enough is
enough, but I intend to try to work via other channels whenever I can.
 A Council vote in my opinion should be a foregone conclusion on most
matters - my votes shouldn't surprise anybody on either side.  If I
have an opinion on an issue I'll put it out there so that people can
point out my mistakes BEFORE I actually make them.  If the Council can
help influence a decision or broker a compromise on the lists before
it gets to a schedule meeting, that is a win/win.

I think there should be a place in Gentoo for just about anyone.  You
can contribute without commitment, and if you're a developer you can
contribute at whatever level of commitment you feel is appropriate.
However, I do believe that holding an office of any kind involves
responsibility to the community and not just authority.  That applies
to the office of Maintainer as much as the office of Council.  You
don't need to be a Maintainer to work on a package (just be
responsible for your commits), but if you are a Maintainer then you
have some responsibility to work with those who want to contribute
(whether developers or not).  If somebody has a really strong
technical base but really doesn't want to deal with some of the other
Maintainer responsibilities we should try to pair them up with others
willing to take on those responsibilities (they don't even have to be
devs).  I don't want to boot people out for being busy or just
disinterested in conversation - I think we need to find ways to
support each other.

I'm a libertarian, but also a bit of a socialist.  I believe in
maximizing individual contribution not as an end in itself, but
because this what is usually best for the community.  When the two
conflict, we have to be here to serve.  I get far more out of Gentoo
every day than I give back, so I'm happy to contribute what I can.
I'd hope that most here feel the same.

While I will always be persuadable to change my mind, I'll go ahead
and outline my thoughts on a few contemporary issues, because I think
you deserve to know them.  These aren't promises - just my voice in
the conversation:

- With respect to moving from the Council to a single leader:  I think
it might work, but I think it should be a prime minister, not supreme
dictator.

- With respect to Devrel/Userrel/QA: I would like to see some kind of
accountability to Council beyond just the appeals provision.  Perhaps
they're appointed, or confirmed, or at least able to be recalled.
Maybe some routine reporting of how things are going is appropriate.
It can be a two-way street as well - how can Council enable and make
these organizations more effective?

- With respect to your-most/least-favorite-technology:  In general I'm
in favor of minimizing the burden placed on Maintainers to take care
of technologies they are not interested in.  However, Maintainers
cannot block work that others wish to do, and I will not support
monopolizing of packages either.  Alternate implementations are fine,
but should not be the norm, and certainly not if the only reason is
because Maintainers refuse to play nicely.

- With respect to the CoC.  When we ask devs to treat others
respectfully we are not asking them to make a sacrifice.  This is just
how we should operate.  If you can't say it nicely, maybe wait until
you can, or don't say it at all.  Honestly, I liked the Proctor
concept - I don't think that Devrel and an outright ban is the right
solution for every problem.  I'd prefer that we try to nip problems in
the bud with a slap before they get out of hand.

If anybody wants to talk to me offline or on-list about anything feel
free to do so.  I think I'm pretty approachable, and I'll probably try
to be a bit more outgoing when I see issues if elected.  I'm always
interested in coming up with better approaches - when I make it a
proposal it really is just a proposal.

So, vote for me, or not.  This isn't a feather in my hat as far as I'm
concerned.  I'll try to contribute where I can regardless both to the
distro and the Foundation.  I'm really curious to see how this
election turns out.

Rich