[gentoo-project] Gentoo conflicts and leadership

[gentoo-project] Gentoo conflicts and leadership

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4183 bytes --]

Starting a new thread, so others can filter.

> On Thursday, January 5, 2017 2:15:34 PM EST Rich Freeman wrote:
> Two things:
> 
> First, serious conflicts are actually pretty rare.  Sure, they're in
> the spotlight right now because we've had one of those
> once-in-a-few-years big incidents.

Somewhat, with regard to myself, I am tired of watching it happen over the 
years and doing nothing. I thought it was just me, but years of observation 
has shown its a much larger problem, going back to people like Ciaran and 
before. That I chose a year that other stuff was going on, was just by 
coincidence.

I had long mentioned taking things on list on by bug for years. I just held 
back and finally the dam broke.

> Second, conflicts don't actually result in quagmires.  Life moves on.
> We don't have difficulty deciding what to do with problematic people.
> A decision gets made, and sometimes it is appealed, and then a final
> decision gets made.

Hardly, Gentoo Java has been stagnant in may ways for years. That is 
essentially a quagmire. New Java devs are few and far between. But it is not 
just Java lacking. I love how people say Gentoo is lacking man power, then 
turn around sand say its not in a  quagmire. If you lack man power, clearly 
things are not getting done. So some things are not moving on.

Ebuilds with no EAPI, cruft that needs to be updated, removed etc. Lots of 
stuff in tree far beyond Java.

> I'm not sure why you think Gentoo uses consensus-based
> decision-making. 

Because it is lead by pleasing the developers. Any action that developers do 
not agree with is not taken. That is consensus.

From what I have observed the council is routinely polling for topics, and 
hardly presenting new ones. I do not see leadership. If decisions are not 
voted on or made by all developers, seems they are not taking place.

Nothing has changed on Foundation side, I do not see much happening anywhere.

> Most big things happen simply by announcing them on
> the lists and then change happens.  Sometimes it is controversial, so
> then it waits for the next Council meeting, assuming the Council even
> needs to deal with it as opposed to a project team.  Then the decision
> is made, and life moves on.

Where is the leadership coming from the council? The council coming up with 
some direction for Gentoo?

Is there any direction?

The council was supposed to lead the project technically. I do not see such 
happening. Here is an example, just happens to relate to Java.
http://www.funtoo.org/Java_Configuration_Design_Update

Where are the council produced GLEPs? 

> Now, what we don't do is have the Council just come out with policies
> out of nowhere that nobody else agrees with.  That isn't being
> decisive, that is just being stupid when you're a volunteer-based
> organization.  Sure, many of our decisions are compromises, but they
> tend to be compromises that make sense.
 
No that is leadership. Leaders come up with ideas to benefit those they lead. 
They should not solely rely on what others feel should be done, etc. There are 
many times leaders must take things in directions people disagree with at 
first, but sometimes tend to be the right thing in the long run.

For example, things like SLFC was discussed regarding Gentoo long ago. If 
Gentoo ever did that, there would be a percentage that disagree. Those same 
people may or may not want to be involved in the foundation. But really such 
decisions should not be left to them but say the Trustees. They vote for and 
elect the Trustees. Thus any direction and decision they agree on, should not 
be challenged per se. If you do not like it, you elect different ones next 
time.

I believe you, Rich have stated exactly that about your opinions and such. If 
people do not like it, vote for someone else for council right? But that does 
not mean you should be micro managed as a council member. To an extent your 
opinion does outweigh others. You were democratically elected by a majority to 
represent them. Not for them to approve everything you do.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo conflicts and leadership

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6121 bytes --]

On 01/05/2017 01:33 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> Starting a new thread, so others can filter.
> 
>> On Thursday, January 5, 2017 2:15:34 PM EST Rich Freeman wrote:
>> Two things:
>>
>> First, serious conflicts are actually pretty rare.  Sure, they're in
>> the spotlight right now because we've had one of those
>> once-in-a-few-years big incidents.
> 
> Somewhat, with regard to myself, I am tired of watching it happen over the 
> years and doing nothing. I thought it was just me, but years of observation 
> has shown its a much larger problem, going back to people like Ciaran and 
> before. That I chose a year that other stuff was going on, was just by 
> coincidence.
> 
> I had long mentioned taking things on list on by bug for years. I just held 
> back and finally the dam broke.
> 

I don't think we are talking about your posts here but other incident(s).

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...

>> Second, conflicts don't actually result in quagmires.  Life moves on.
>> We don't have difficulty deciding what to do with problematic people.
>> A decision gets made, and sometimes it is appealed, and then a final
>> decision gets made.
> 
> Hardly, Gentoo Java has been stagnant in may ways for years. That is 
> essentially a quagmire. New Java devs are few and far between. But it is not 
> just Java lacking. I love how people say Gentoo is lacking man power, then 
> turn around sand say its not in a  quagmire. If you lack man power, clearly 
> things are not getting done. So some things are not moving on.
> 
> Ebuilds with no EAPI, cruft that needs to be updated, removed etc. Lots of 
> stuff in tree far beyond Java.
> 

Gentoo wants more devs, I wouldn't call it a NEED just yet.  There will
never be a lack of work...

>> I'm not sure why you think Gentoo uses consensus-based
>> decision-making. 
> 
> Because it is lead by pleasing the developers. Any action that developers do 
> not agree with is not taken. That is consensus.
> 
> From what I have observed the council is routinely polling for topics, and 
> hardly presenting new ones. I do not see leadership. If decisions are not 
> voted on or made by all developers, seems they are not taking place.
> 
> Nothing has changed on Foundation side, I do not see much happening anywhere.
> 

I'd say the Foundation is more active now than it has been in years, and
that's a good thing.  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).  The existing system is fairly
democratic and not representative which I think is fine at our size.  I
don't think Gentoo should be more chaotic, as that just leads to more
in-fighting.

>> Most big things happen simply by announcing them on
>> the lists and then change happens.  Sometimes it is controversial, so
>> then it waits for the next Council meeting, assuming the Council even
>> needs to deal with it as opposed to a project team.  Then the decision
>> is made, and life moves on.
> 
> Where is the leadership coming from the council? The council coming up with 
> some direction for Gentoo?
> 

Direction is asked for and then given.  Council is elected by the devs,
and represent Gentoo as a whole.

> Is there any direction?
> 
> The council was supposed to lead the project technically. I do not see such 
> happening. Here is an example, just happens to relate to Java.
> http://www.funtoo.org/Java_Configuration_Design_Update
> 
> 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.

>> Now, what we don't do is have the Council just come out with policies
>> out of nowhere that nobody else agrees with.  That isn't being
>> decisive, that is just being stupid when you're a volunteer-based
>> organization.  Sure, many of our decisions are compromises, but they
>> tend to be compromises that make sense.
>  
> No that is leadership. Leaders come up with ideas to benefit those they lead. 
> They should not solely rely on what others feel should be done, etc. There are 
> many times leaders must take things in directions people disagree with at 
> first, but sometimes tend to be the right thing in the long run.
> 
> For example, things like SLFC was discussed regarding Gentoo long ago. If 
> Gentoo ever did that, there would be a percentage that disagree. Those same 
> people may or may not want to be involved in the foundation. But really such 
> decisions should not be left to them but say the Trustees. They vote for and 
> elect the Trustees. Thus any direction and decision they agree on, should not 
> be challenged per se. If you do not like it, you elect different ones next 
> time.
> 
> I believe you, Rich have stated exactly that about your opinions and such. If 
> people do not like it, vote for someone else for council right? But that does 
> not mean you should be micro managed as a council member. To an extent your 
> opinion does outweigh others. You were democratically elected by a majority to 
> represent them. Not for them to approve everything you do.
> 

Council as it exists now is representative with it's agenda mostly set
democratically, aka direct.

What you are seeking is that the Council takes more action without
direct community involvement?

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.


-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo conflicts and leadership

[M. J. Everitt]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1075 bytes --]

On 05/01/17 20:07, Matthew Thode wrote:
>
> Council as it exists now is representative with it's agenda mostly set
> democratically, aka direct.
>
> What you are seeking is that the Council takes more action without
> direct community involvement?
>
<snip>

What really needs to happen, as a priority, is Gentoo as a whole needs
to acknowledges and actively pursue the idea that the "Gentoo community"
is significantly greater than, and not _EQUAL-TO_ the Gentoo Developers
as defined by those electing council and those who hold a @g.o email and
/gentoo/developer/<nick> IRC cloak. Until this happens, it is clearly
visible that there is a potential conflict of interest in that the
"community" preserves the status-quo and only ever acts on it's own
interests, and not that of, for instance, its user-base or the *linux
community* at large.

Fortunately, I have faith in promeanthefire as someone who could
potentially make this happen as part of a reform programme, but as all
may know, this will be a long- and at times difficult road to travel.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo conflicts and leadership

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1641 bytes --]

On 01/05/2017 02:16 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote:
> On 05/01/17 20:07, Matthew Thode wrote:
>>
>> Council as it exists now is representative with it's agenda mostly set
>> democratically, aka direct.
>>
>> What you are seeking is that the Council takes more action without
>> direct community involvement?
>>
> <snip>
> 
> What really needs to happen, as a priority, is Gentoo as a whole needs
> to acknowledges and actively pursue the idea that the "Gentoo community"
> is significantly greater than, and not _EQUAL-TO_ the Gentoo Developers
> as defined by those electing council and those who hold a @g.o email and
> /gentoo/developer/<nick> IRC cloak. Until this happens, it is clearly
> visible that there is a potential conflict of interest in that the
> "community" preserves the status-quo and only ever acts on it's own
> interests, and not that of, for instance, its user-base or the *linux
> community* at large.
> 
> Fortunately, I have faith in promeanthefire as someone who could
> potentially make this happen as part of a reform programme, but as all
> may know, this will be a long- and at times difficult road to travel.
> 

Thanks for the vote of confidence, that should have been developer and
not community involvement.  That's not to say that the community can't
raise concerns when a proposal comes up, but in order to give any sort
of representation to the community for voting in any way it would
require defining exactly what the community is, that's a rabbit hole
that's best left to it's own effort, later (more important things to do
now :P).

-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo conflicts and leadership

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5823 bytes --]

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.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo conflicts and leadership

[Rich Freeman]

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 3:36 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
<wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>

On this I disagree.

The kind of leadership you're talking about doesn't require winning an
election.  Anybody can lead Gentoo in this way.  This was largely the
intended role of project leaders back in the day.

The role of the Council is to keep all the disparate little projects
that make up Gentoo working in relative harmony.  That way when the
leader of the C++ project wants to make a change that will break all
the Java packages you don't just have the two project leads fighting
WW3.

If somebody has an idea for where they want to take Gentoo I hope
they're not waiting until they win an election to implement it.  If
nobody has any such ideas then we wouldn't have anybody to elect into
a Council role even if we thought the Council was the place for such
folks.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo conflicts and leadership

[Rich Freeman]

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 3:16 PM, M. J. Everitt <m.j.everitt@iee.org> wrote:
>
> What really needs to happen, as a priority, is Gentoo as a whole needs
> to acknowledges and actively pursue the idea that the "Gentoo community"
> is significantly greater than, and not _EQUAL-TO_ the Gentoo Developers
> as defined by those electing council and those who hold a @g.o email and
> /gentoo/developer/<nick> IRC cloak. Until this happens, it is clearly
> visible that there is a potential conflict of interest in that the
> "community" preserves the status-quo and only ever acts on it's own
> interests, and not that of, for instance, its user-base or the *linux
> community* at large.
>

Anybody who wants to become a developer can do so if they have the
ability and desire to contribute positively.

I get that there are people who don't have these abilities/desires,
and they may not always agree with where the developers want to take
things.  In the end though, we're volunteers.  We scratch our own
itches.

On the whole I think a lot more benefits fall down to the larger
community when developers are happy than when they aren't, and so it
is going to be the nature of Gentoo to cater to the desires of the
developers.

What is the alternative, giving a lot of voting power to people who
aren't developers?  Suppose we do that.  Suppose the larger community
uses their voting power to pass a policy that they want but which
developers don't want.  Well, the developers will probably react by
spending their time doing other things, since nobody is forcing them
to contribute anything.  Suddenly the community has shot itself in the
foot.

Ultimately Gentoo is working together to produce a product.  If it is
a product that you want to use, then use it.  If it is a product that
you don't want to use, please contact us for a full refund, and
consider contributing to somebody who makes a product that you do want
to use.  That's why we have 4000 linux distributions and not one.
There is no rule saying we can have only one source-based distro
either, we certainly don't have just one binary distribution.  Of
late, I'm not convinced that a lot of newer Gentoo users even care
that it is source-based.  There is also no rule saying that we can
only have one distro that doesn't require running systemd...  :)

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo conflicts and leadership

[M. J. Everitt]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1664 bytes --]

On 05/01/17 20:58, Rich Freeman wrote:
> The kind of leadership you're talking about doesn't require winning an
> election.  Anybody can lead Gentoo in this way.  This was largely the
> intended role of project leaders back in the day.
>
> The role of the Council is to keep all the disparate little projects
> that make up Gentoo working in relative harmony.  That way when the
> leader of the C++ project wants to make a change that will break all
> the Java packages you don't just have the two project leads fighting
> WW3.
>
> If somebody has an idea for where they want to take Gentoo I hope
> they're not waiting until they win an election to implement it.  If
> nobody has any such ideas then we wouldn't have anybody to elect into
> a Council role even if we thought the Council was the place for such
> folks.
>
It is a common gross misconception that it is the role of Council to
Lead. It is Not, and probably Never shall be. Council is a body for
facilitation only, and to that end, it mostly functions OK. I wondered
once whether that should be a Foundation role, but with the ideas
regarding reform currently circulating, this might be difficult to realise.

It is a completely different question to ask whether Gentoo -has-
leadership, -wants- leadership, or indeed -needs- leadership. Now, this
doesn't need to go so far as to say "we're going to do This or That" or
"we're NOT going to do This or That" but more that .. "we aim for this"
and "our key objectives are these" and for that we probably want to
appoint a new body to oversee, if that is something that either the
developers or community-at-large desire.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo conflicts and leadership

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 623 bytes --]

>
> Where is the leadership coming from the council? The council coming up with
> some direction for Gentoo?
> 
> Is there any direction?
> 

A universally acknowledged fact is that strong leadership is a great thing if 
you yourself are doing the leading.

If anyone else does it, it tends to lead to endless mailing list debates, 
appeal procedures and cries about democratic legitimization and community 
involvement. :P

William, I'm not really sure Gentoo is ready yet to be ruled by your strong 
hand.

-- 
Andreas K. Hüttel
dilfridge@gentoo.org
Gentoo Linux developer (council, perl, libreoffice)

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo conflicts and leadership

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 604 bytes --]

On 01/05/2017 03:07 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> 
> What is the alternative, giving a lot of voting power to people who
> aren't developers?  Suppose we do that.  Suppose the larger community
> uses their voting power to pass a policy that they want but which
> developers don't want.  Well, the developers will probably react by
> spending their time doing other things, since nobody is forcing them
> to contribute anything.  Suddenly the community has shot itself in the
> foot.
> 

I'd hope that the Trustees / Council could Veto things like that.


-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo conflicts and leadership

[M. J. Everitt]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3441 bytes --]

On 05/01/17 21:07, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 3:16 PM, M. J. Everitt <m.j.everitt@iee.org> wrote:
>> What really needs to happen, as a priority, is Gentoo as a whole needs
>> to acknowledges and actively pursue the idea that the "Gentoo community"
>> is significantly greater than, and not _EQUAL-TO_ the Gentoo Developers
>> as defined by those electing council and those who hold a @g.o email and
>> /gentoo/developer/<nick> IRC cloak. Until this happens, it is clearly
>> visible that there is a potential conflict of interest in that the
>> "community" preserves the status-quo and only ever acts on it's own
>> interests, and not that of, for instance, its user-base or the *linux
>> community* at large.
>>
> Anybody who wants to become a developer can do so if they have the
> ability and desire to contribute positively.
>
> I get that there are people who don't have these abilities/desires,
> and they may not always agree with where the developers want to take
> things.  In the end though, we're volunteers.  We scratch our own
> itches.
>
> On the whole I think a lot more benefits fall down to the larger
> community when developers are happy than when they aren't, and so it
> is going to be the nature of Gentoo to cater to the desires of the
> developers.
Of course that is true, and I don't have any problem with nurturing a
good environment to work in. What I do have a problem with, is making an
environment that is hostile for *anyone* to work in, or generally
unhelpful to achieving the common causes which people care about ...
> What is the alternative, giving a lot of voting power to people who
> aren't developers?  Suppose we do that.  Suppose the larger community
> uses their voting power to pass a policy that they want but which
> developers don't want.  Well, the developers will probably react by
> spending their time doing other things, since nobody is forcing them
> to contribute anything.  Suddenly the community has shot itself in the
> foot.
Of course I'm not advocating giving the community-at-large a vote on
who's in and who's out, or what we should or should not achieve (that's
being very effectively done by the systemd team!), that's obviously
counter-productive to what I would consider a common goal. If the goal
ain't common .. go elsewhere ...
> Ultimately Gentoo is working together to produce a product.  If it is
> a product that you want to use, then use it.  If it is a product that
> you don't want to use, please contact us for a full refund, and
> consider contributing to somebody who makes a product that you do want
> to use.  That's why we have 4000 linux distributions and not one.
> There is no rule saying we can have only one source-based distro
> either, we certainly don't have just one binary distribution.  Of
> late, I'm not convinced that a lot of newer Gentoo users even care
> that it is source-based.  There is also no rule saying that we can
> only have one distro that doesn't require running systemd...  :)
>
Precisely, we will all work much better *together* if we're working to
the same standards and the same goals.

It is quite obvious to most, that the likes of William here, has
different aims/objectives/ideas and principles to Gentoo. Now, whilst he
would like to change those, its not in his power to do so .. so .. quite
frankly, he should pursue his interest elsewhere...


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo conflicts and leadership

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2964 bytes --]

On Thursday, January 5, 2017 3:58:44 PM EST Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 3:36 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
> 
> <wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> On this I disagree.

There will always be disagreements in communities, and why you need 
leadership.

> The kind of leadership you're talking about doesn't require winning an
> election.  Anybody can lead Gentoo in this way.  This was largely the
> intended role of project leaders back in the day.

Those still fed into a larger hierarchy.

> The role of the Council is to keep all the disparate little projects
> that make up Gentoo working in relative harmony.  That way when the
> leader of the C++ project wants to make a change that will break all
> the Java packages you don't just have the two project leads fighting
> WW3.

So conflict resolution is the only purpose of the council? There is no greater 
vision for Gentoo?

> If somebody has an idea for where they want to take Gentoo I hope
> they're not waiting until they win an election to implement it.

What about things like Gentoo certifications? That can come from anyone 
anywhere? It is naive to thing anyone developer or contributor can lead Gentoo 
as a total project.

Gentoo has not had any unified direction likely since Daniel left. Thus since 
its just been adrift with no direction no focus. Just what ever the whims of 
anyone contributing code.

On the smaller scale anyone can scratch their itch. But as you went up the 
hierarchy pre-council you would run into someone who was looking as to the 
direction of the project as a whole. When that person felt they could not 
lead, they tried to transition to another structure.

Which because everyone has their 2 cents on what the council, foundation, 
Gentoo etc should be. Its been unfocused since then, because its consensus 
leadership rather than having an actual leader, singular, or via the council.

> If nobody has any such ideas then we wouldn't have anybody to elect into
> a Council role even if we thought the Council was the place for such
> folks.

Ideas exist but ones for the project as a whole, are not able to be pulled off 
from within.

Why did Steve Jobs leave Apple? He was never fire, but reduced his role such 
that he had little influence over things, so he left. When he returned and was 
given full control, history was made. A company facing failure and bankruptcy 
returned to be the most profitable in the US.

Steve had ideas for Apple they did not want. They did not want him. Apple 
suffered severely without. Steve went on to pursue his ideas which Apple 
eventually bought some back, and others Disney bought...

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo conflicts and leadership

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2389 bytes --]

On Thursday, January 5, 2017 9:09:43 PM EST M. J. Everitt wrote:
> 
> It is a common gross misconception that it is the role of Council to
> Lead. It is Not, and probably Never shall be. 

Where are you getting that from? I have gone back to Daniel and seen how the 
council came about and other things. How everyone views the council and 
foundation is COMPLETELY wrong.

I have done extensive research. Gentoo is so far from what things were 
intended to be. I was trying to correct some when I was a trustee. 
Unfortunately I gave into a silent minority who most of which have moved on. 
Yet the issues remain, problems they prevented solutions from addressing still 
remain.

> Council is a body for
> facilitation only, and to that end, it mostly functions OK. I wondered
> once whether that should be a Foundation role, but with the ideas
> regarding reform currently circulating, this might be difficult to realise.

I would suggest you go back and look at how the council came to be. I made a 
post public some time ago that showed exactly what things were supposed to be 
from Daniel. But once he turned things over, it was lead by consensus and 
everyone has their own vision of the foundation and council.

Yet most seem to dismiss that of the founder of Gentoo. You need to revisit 
the ideas from the person who started and founded Gentoo. The person who 
created the foundation, and allowed the council to replace their position.

> It is a completely different question to ask whether Gentoo -has-
> leadership, -wants- leadership, or indeed -needs- leadership. 

It had leadership, the community drove it away, favoring some experiment in 
organizational structure. Unlike any other FOSS project or entity in the 
world. Despite the fact that it does not work. People keep speaking like 
Gentoo structure is that by design and it is not. Gentoo structure is one of 
evolution as a result of consensus decision making.

> Now, this
> doesn't need to go so far as to say "we're going to do This or That" or
> "we're NOT going to do This or That" but more that .. "we aim for this"
> and "our key objectives are these" and for that we probably want to
> appoint a new body to oversee, if that is something that either the
> developers or community-at-large desire.

I believe that was how things were lead when Daniel Robbins was Chief 
Architect.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo conflicts and leadership

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1443 bytes --]

On Thursday, January 5, 2017 10:10:43 PM EST Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>
> A universally acknowledged fact is that strong leadership is a great thing
> if you yourself are doing the leading.

Yet the world is run by leaders in every country, every locality. Something 
that works for the entire world surely cannot work for Gentoo right?

> William, I'm not really sure Gentoo is ready yet to be ruled by your strong
> hand.

I have zero interest in such. If anything I would rather see Daniel Robbins 
return to lead the project he started. It is his rightful place.

Please do not make assumptions as to my agenda. If you take any time to know 
me. which most have never. You will quickly learn I rather empower others than 
myself.  Ask the Java Team lead how that came about. I suggested it, and some 
what motivated them to taking the role. As I did with others in the past.

I see myself as controversial enough I would not want to taint things. Given 
how most see me as an outcast, and anything I say or do is seen in a jaded 
light. Plus I have my own business, so no need to be running something else. I 
would have a conflict of interest.

When I was a trustee, I was not president or any man role, just a plan 
trustee. If you get a copy of my manifesto I said do not vote for me.

I want to see leadership and be led, I am not seeking to lead. Do not get that 
twisted.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo conflicts and leadership

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 751 bytes --]

On Thursday, January 5, 2017 4:07:57 PM EST Rich Freeman wrote:
> 
> What is the alternative, giving a lot of voting power to people who
> aren't developers?  

Check this out. It would not work for Gentoo, but types could be created.
https://eclipse.org/membership/become_a_member/membershipTypes.php

There are enough well organized FOSS projects, that Gentoo could adopt one of 
those models or a hybrid. Just have to look around and cherry pick or find a 
model that is close enough and adopt similar.

Many have corporate sponsors, community members, contributors, etc. All are 
different, but lots of examples, Gnome, Apache, FreeBSD, just to name some we 
all know. There are many more out there. 

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo conflicts and leadership

[M. J. Everitt]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 405 bytes --]

On 05/01/17 21:24, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
>
> I believe that was how things were lead when Daniel Robbins was Chief 
> Architect.
>
1) I don't believe you got the memo that said that DRobbins left Gentoo.
I certainly don't see him on the paperwork.

2) things move on .. they never remain static, and those that do, tend
to fall behind. In software, we often call that 'bit-rot' .. FYI


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo conflicts and leadership

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2150 bytes --]

On Thursday, January 5, 2017 9:53:55 PM EST M. J. Everitt wrote:
> On 05/01/17 21:24, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> > I believe that was how things were lead when Daniel Robbins was Chief
> > Architect.
> 
> 1) I don't believe you got the memo that said that DRobbins left Gentoo.
> I certainly don't see him on the paperwork.

No one knows who is on file with the IRS. People are looking into that. If you 
want to contact Gentoo's registered agent, who is also Daniel's Attorney and 
ask him who filed the original paperwork etc. Its a mess that was NEVER set 
straight from when the foundation was first filed. In fact the first filing with 
the IRS seems to be the only one done ever.

Now what you likely are not aware of is Daniel returned to Gentoo around the 
time he was still on file with New Mexico. When the foundation needed to be 
reinstated. I was an advocate of his return at that time. I know for a fact 
having spoken with Daniel. If Gentoo allowed him to have his title of Chief 
Architect and return to lead the project he founded. He would return in a 
heart beat.

Despite media and other rumors. He left and created Funtoo over not being able 
to lead Gentoo. Not because of issues with developers or otherwise. If you 
look at Funtoo he learned and will never make the same mistake there.

I am simply saying lets stop this experiment and madness. Lets bring back the 
founder, see what his ideas are and leadership can do to the project. After 
all he started this project. There would be no Gentoo if it wasn't for Daniel.

> 2) things move on .. they never remain static, and those that do, tend
> to fall behind. In software, we often call that 'bit-rot' .. FYI

I call it Gentoo..... Do you realize there are things that are not even EAPI=1 
in tree. There is cruft I was trying to remove in 2008 that is still in 
portage. Everything you just said explains my behavior!

Gentoo == bit-rot

Why do you think I am so upset? Its been this way for a long time. Others have 
not been updating this stuff. Nor finding others. Just standing in the way of 
some who would do the work they are not.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo conflicts and leadership

[Rich Freeman]

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 4:19 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
<wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, January 5, 2017 3:58:44 PM EST Rich Freeman wrote:
>
>> If somebody has an idea for where they want to take Gentoo I hope
>> they're not waiting until they win an election to implement it.
>
> What about things like Gentoo certifications? That can come from anyone
> anywhere?

Sure, why couldn't it?  If they need some kind of blessing from on
high at some point they need only ask.

> It is naive to thing anyone developer or contributor can lead Gentoo
> as a total project.

Nor should they.  Creating Gentoo certifications doesn't require
telling anybody else what they can/can't do.  Nor does improving Java
support, or making Gentoo more suitable for any particular purpose.

Somebody just needs to create it, either through personal effort, or
for gathering others with a like mind.

eudev was created because a bunch of developers wanted to create it.
Now everybody else can choose to use it or not as their preference.
What could a "Chief Architect" do besides just pick one winner and
have everybody else go elsewhere?  The Council was involved in getting
to where we are, mostly by ironing out compromises so that the various
options can co-exist and somebody can run eudev and sysvinit without
having to fork the entire rest of the distro.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo conflicts and leadership

[Daniel Campbell]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 630 bytes --]

On 01/05/2017 02:47 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> What could a "Chief Architect" do besides just pick one winner and
> have everybody else go elsewhere?

Isn't that a bit of a false dichotomy? You're implying that a single
architect couldn't come to the same conclusion as a committee. A BDFL
could easily decide that choice is important and ask developers to keep
that in mind going forward... pretty much exactly as the Council has done.

The 'B' part of BDFL is important.
-- 
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C  1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo conflicts and leadership

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1046 bytes --]

On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 01:12:04 -0800
Daniel Campbell <zlg@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 01/05/2017 02:47 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > What could a "Chief Architect" do besides just pick one winner and
> > have everybody else go elsewhere?  
> 
> Isn't that a bit of a false dichotomy? You're implying that a single
> architect couldn't come to the same conclusion as a committee. A BDFL
> could easily decide that choice is important and ask developers to keep
> that in mind going forward... pretty much exactly as the Council has done.
> 
> The 'B' part of BDFL is important.

The point is, the committee may not come to any conclusion at all. It
is powerless. It's in the second plane. Without some degree of
conspiracy, Council isn't able to do much bad to Gentoo. Think of
the worst possible scenario.

BDFL on the other hand pretty much implies absolute power. Which
implies forcing people to do his bidding or throwing them out 'for
the good of Gentoo'.

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

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

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo conflicts and leadership

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1716 bytes --]

On Friday, January 6, 2017 1:12:04 AM EST Daniel Campbell wrote:
> On 01/05/2017 02:47 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > What could a "Chief Architect" do besides just pick one winner and
> > have everybody else go elsewhere?
> 
> Isn't that a bit of a false dichotomy? You're implying that a single
> architect couldn't come to the same conclusion as a committee. A BDFL
> could easily decide that choice is important and ask developers to keep
> that in mind going forward... pretty much exactly as the Council has done.
> 
> The 'B' part of BDFL is important.

YES, Steve Jobs, Apple.

Do you really need any better example? You think Oracle would be that without 
Larry Ellison? Bill and others left Microsoft and its just lost market share. 
Larry and Serge still run Google. Mark at Facebook, ever noticed the mailer, 
zuckmail....

It is very foolish to thing boards or committees can do the same as 
visionaries. History shows otherwise. There is no better example than Apple. 
They thought they could run Apple better than Steve.

Gentoo legally has been a mess since Daniel left. That is a fact! Look into 
the legal situation and you will see that cannot be contested, thus a fact.
Now the other aspects could be contested, but I cannot see Gentoo hurting 
itself any worse than it has since Daniel left.

Its just naysayers that cast doubt rather than being open minded to trying 
alternatives. While being involved in a project Daniel started. 

I am not surprised, Daniel gets no respect for founding Gentoo, the 
foundation, etc. I get no respect for what I did for the foundation.

Steve Jobs was also not respected, till he was needed....

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo conflicts and leadership

[Ciaran McCreesh]

On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 11:04:32 -0500
"William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:
> I am not surprised, Daniel gets no respect for founding Gentoo, the 
> foundation, etc. I get no respect for what I did for the foundation.

With no respect, you're no Daniel.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo conflicts and leadership

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2287 bytes --]

On Friday, January 6, 2017 4:10:33 PM EST Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 11:04:32 -0500
> 
> "William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:
> > I am not surprised, Daniel gets no respect for founding Gentoo, the
> > foundation, etc. I get no respect for what I did for the foundation.
> 
> With no respect, you're no Daniel.

I am not saying I am Daniel. I am saying short of Daniel, I have done more for 
the foundation legally than anyone else. Till Robin/robbat2's recent efforts. 
That is a fact, not an opinion! Neither Daniel nor I get any respect for what 
we have done for the Foundation was my point. Robbin is getting respect and 
praise, though people really do not realize the mess. Having things inline 
account wise is good, but moot. Given the bigger issues with the IRS. 

Depending on what Robin can do with the IRS, he could equal or top my efforts. 
More so if bylaws are updated and further revised. But at min remove my name 
and update current trustees and re-file by laws with New Mexico.

Keep in mind all Robins accounting efforts would be moot without a bank 
account... That was NOT trivial to find a bank to work with Gentoo's structure 
and international board, no one residing in New Mexico etc. I spent a month 
finding a bank account. Spent many hours, way more than I would have doing 
commits or other technical work. I damn near got investigated, because asking 
can I open an account not being in the state, not walking into the bank, with 
a international board sounds like money laundering, terrorist funding etc.

Also with respect, you Ciaran were one in part that helped to drive Daniel 
away. Such that history has the record messed up, and people think he left due 
to personal conflicts with developers. Which was not the reason he left and 
created Funtoo.
http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20070312#future

The irony, I was calling for respect for Daniel, and Ciaran was one who was no 
showing much respect and justifying such with comments that are in that 
article. If you look to the post, I was the developer calling for respect.

Just as I am saying people need to be more respectful now. Yet what is the 
response, more disrespect. I know I am not Daniel, he knows this as well :)

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo conflicts and leadership

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2160 bytes --]

On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 11:04:32 -0500
"William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:

> On Friday, January 6, 2017 1:12:04 AM EST Daniel Campbell wrote:
> > On 01/05/2017 02:47 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:  
> > > What could a "Chief Architect" do besides just pick one winner and
> > > have everybody else go elsewhere?  
> > 
> > Isn't that a bit of a false dichotomy? You're implying that a single
> > architect couldn't come to the same conclusion as a committee. A BDFL
> > could easily decide that choice is important and ask developers to keep
> > that in mind going forward... pretty much exactly as the Council has done.
> > 
> > The 'B' part of BDFL is important.  
> 
> YES, Steve Jobs, Apple.
> 
> Do you really need any better example? You think Oracle would be that without 
> Larry Ellison? Bill and others left Microsoft and its just lost market share. 
> Larry and Serge still run Google. Mark at Facebook, ever noticed the mailer, 
> zuckmail....
> 
> It is very foolish to thing boards or committees can do the same as 
> visionaries. History shows otherwise. There is no better example than Apple. 
> They thought they could run Apple better than Steve.
> 
> Gentoo legally has been a mess since Daniel left. That is a fact! Look into 
> the legal situation and you will see that cannot be contested, thus a fact.
> Now the other aspects could be contested, but I cannot see Gentoo hurting 
> itself any worse than it has since Daniel left.
> 
> Its just naysayers that cast doubt rather than being open minded to trying 
> alternatives. While being involved in a project Daniel started. 
> 
> I am not surprised, Daniel gets no respect for founding Gentoo, the 
> foundation, etc. I get no respect for what I did for the foundation.
> 
> Steve Jobs was also not respected, till he was needed....

I see where you are going, William. I have to say that this surprised
me a bit, and I am very flattered by your trust. However, I'm sorry to
say that I don't feel like I'm interested in running Gentoo all by
myself at the moment.

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

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

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo conflicts and leadership

[Raymond Jennings]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 95 bytes --]

I would also like to point out what should be very obvious, that a BDFL has
a bus factor of 1.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 128 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo conflicts and leadership

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 392 bytes --]

On Wednesday, January 11, 2017 8:15:32 AM EST Raymond Jennings wrote:
> I would also like to point out what should be very obvious, that a BDFL has
> a bus factor of 1.

Some major projects are run this way successfully; Linux, Python, Ruby, Perl.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictator_for_life

There is good reason and benefit for such.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]