On Thursday, January 5, 2017 2:07:15 PM EST Matthew Thode wrote: > On 01/05/2017 01:33 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > > I don't think we are talking about your posts here but other incident(s). Sure I was just clarifying my position as not being attached to or a result of recent events. Rather things happening over an extended period of time. > As far as preventing conflicts of interest and being more open goes I > have made a proposal to 'slay the two headed beast' and unite Gentoo > under one org structure. No one seems to have really commented on it > though... That is how it goes, no one cares till you do. That is until you start to take actions others may not comment. Those that agree will likely remain mostly silent, and anyone who opposes will make themselves known. For as much as people say they care about Gentoo, most really do not when it comes to the big picture. Gentoo over all, foundation, etc. > Gentoo wants more devs, I wouldn't call it a NEED just yet. There will > never be a lack of work... True, and packages are ever increasing exponentially. Something would need to be done before it reached the NEED stage. By then things may be to far gone. Java is almost there. The amount of work to get current is so tremendous. It makes it not worth while. > I'd say the Foundation is more active now than it has been in years, and > that's a good thing. I agree, but that is something that has been active at times, with longer periods of being inactive. Hopefully it keeps up, but I am not as confident due to the history. Much more was going on in 2007 and 2008, and since not much. I hope any efforts in 2016-2017 lay a foundation that continues without any periods of inactivity. > As far as new topics being presented to council > and not by council I think that's also a good thing, to have ideas / > proposals come from the bottom up (unless something systemically bad is > found and a top down approach is needed). I am not saying ideas should never come from developers. More than most the ideas should be coming from the council, as they are leading Gentoo. The council should always be receptive to developer input and ideas, but should be producing at least the same if not more themselves. > The existing system is fairly > democratic and not representative which I think is fine at our size. Democracy only works to elect leaders. Leaders must still lead. I am not aware of any democracy that is run 100% by the people without a single or unified leadership. Most any entity has a single head of the organization, top leader. Why I think people saying pyramid scheme is a joke. Any hierarchy in any organization is a pyramid. Even a board has a chair person. > I don't think Gentoo should be more chaotic, as that just leads to more > in-fighting. It is exactly that chaos that leads to wonderful things. Most the greatest inventions came from war time. Rarely does the same come from peace. The entire Internet came about from war/military purposes. But again Steve Jobs, polishing rocks[1]. In that process, rocks smash, make noise, rub up against each other, collide etc., but the result is beautiful polished rocks. That is how Apple was run, and look at their products. You think Steve Jobs did not create chaos? > Direction is asked for and then given. Council is elected by the devs, > and represent Gentoo as a whole. I would call that back seat driving.... Someone has their hands on the wheel. Or do they? > > Where are the council produced GLEPs? > > This area is probably as needed by council, whether or not this should > be the case is a good question that should be raised on it's own. I believe in the past when Daniel was the Chief Architect he was just that. I do not see the council producing big picture long term plans and agenda for Gentoo. That is why I provided a link to ideas he was producing. I do not see that coming from within Gentoo at its top level organization intended to lead the project technically. > Council as it exists now is representative with it's agenda mostly set > democratically, aka direct. I am not sure the council concept from its inception as ever really a good idea. But to my understanding part of the mission of the council was to lead Gentoo. Leadership after democratic election is not usually done by consensus but by the ideas of the leaders. > What you are seeking is that the Council takes more action without > direct community involvement? Yes, that is leadership. They were elected, so they lead. Do not like their leadership, elect a different leader or step up to lead yourself. Again do people you vote for take action without your direct involvement? Politicians do this every day. We elect them, and they do what ever they want after. They can even do everything they said they would not, and none of what they said they would. That is how most politicians are now. > If that is the case that's something I don't think is a good idea, > though if actions taken solely by council then had to be voted on GLEP > style I think that'd be fine (ratification of changes). The types of > changes I'm thinking that would be taken by Council and not by a > sub-group are probably on the GLEP level anyway. Why does everything that goes on in Gentoo need approval from every developer or community member? That is exactly what I am talking about that. Next to nothing in the world is run that way. Even democracies do not operate that way. That is running something by consensus, and comes with lots of unique problems. Read this and you will see Gentoo is has attempted to be lead by consensus not leadership. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-Yv-UdsmSo -- William L. Thomson Jr.