Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Daniel Robbins' come back ?

[Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 8646 bytes --]

On Sunday 13 January 2008, James wrote:

> I turn down most opportunities to be on a BOD
> with many organizations, but, I care about Gentoo quite a lot. If Gentoo
> is truely in crisis, why have the devs not discuss this with the wider
> user community? This simple fact make the whole state of affairs
> suspicious to say the least.

It could just be managerial ineptitude though, combined with emotional 
immaturity of certain persons (if Alan's previous critique re.treating 
persons as machines holds true).

> After reading the aforementioned Blog (by Daniel), I have strong
> reservations about Daniels 'vision'.
>
> First, let him publish his vision, including who he wants to name to the
> board of trustees and the governing bylaws (or changes) he is proposing.
>
> Second if he wants to be the day bay (tribal chief) then he should
> have only a vote as to the makeup of the BOD. Allowing him to return
> with the sole responsibility to select a BOD, is a recipe for doom,
> IMHO. You can describe DOOM as you wish, but, giving carte-blanche
> control to him, or anyone, is foolish, at best. Doing so with no
> published data, nor restrictive covenants, nor by-laws, nor mission
> statement, nor accountability mechanisms.... is unwise, IMHO.

Hear, hear!  You echo my reservations very well, in case they didn't come 
through clear enough in my previous post.

> It also sounds to me as though Daniel, is trying to trick or provoke
> the trustees into allowing him to decide the future of the distro
> without first telling us what that future is to be.  

Exactly.  But this may have to do with his (and others) disagreement with 
Ciaran?  

> But then again 
> why the trustees have become apathetic and have not sought out
> replacement for themselves, is inexcusible if indeed this is the case.
> Daniel probably understands the inherent value in an established distro,
> such as gentoo, and might just be looking to use it (gentoo) more as a
> private fiefdom than an engine for the future benefit of the greater gentoo
> community. Dunno.....

I don't know either, but as you have suggested in your previous message and 
also propose below there are ways of putting checks and balances in place to 
ensure that:

1. Strategic direction is decided by the wider community in a democratic way, 
while preserving the Gentoo principles (i.e. the majority of *future* users 
may want a Ubuntu like distro, but that's not what Gentoo is about).

2. Tactical decisions on what coding should be used, are taken by devs, so 
that they enable the strategic direction and objectives to be achieved.

3. An administrative body with responsible and professional individuals is 
elected to undertake the necessary tasks required to keep Gentoo operating 
and moving forwards, without putting at risk its e.g. legal status.

I see the above three as distinctly different areas of endeavour which tend to 
attract different skillsets and personality profiles.  So it makes sense to 
define them separately, especially as it will offer a focus for succinct 
deliverables and responsibilities.  The boundaries of decision making are 
clear and if life changing moments arrive the the whole Gentoo community is 
asked to participate to the decision making.

> As such here are a few tenants I'd like to see in the article of
> incorporation, bylaws, or where ever the focus of Gentoo is publish. Like
> wise
> you could also view this as my vision of  Gentoo's future. Needless to
> say, I'm what out in front of those that want gentoo to become something
> they use to make a living with, if not reach some measure of significant
> financial success.
>
>
> 1. Keep Gentoo open and free for all to use and exploit to earn a living,
> create a business, become an entrepreneur, educate and use as the
> individual determines is in the best interest of the individual.
>
> 2. Keep licensing more in line with the BSD license for Gentoo centric
> technology (thus encouraging entrepreneurship as defined by the individual
> while simultaneously respecting GPLv2 and maintaining compliance with
> GPLv2.   GPLv3 is a poor idea, IMHO. GPLv3 can be made easily available
> and leave GPLv3 compliance/responsibility up to the individual. In fact
> software licensing and compliance should always be up to the
> INDIVIDUAL, IMHO.
>
> Digression
> I love conspriracy theories:  Here one that makes you think. Greenpeace
> receives it's largest contributions from those that what to keep the
> energy markets closed to all but the largest corporations.....

Ha!  Is that true!??  Who are the largest contributors?

> Here's another:  GPLv3 is the work of The Son of Satan, who sits
> atop a mountain in Redmond......
>
> /end Digression
>
>
> 3. Devise a formal sematic to install of all gentoo's instantiations
> that is open and flexible so various groups can easily create their
> own installation semantics  and share their installation semantics
> with the wider public communities. (competition is the best
> way to solve the current gentoo installation quagmire, methinks.
>
> 4. Formalize a process where others (non devs) can build, store and
> maintain ebuilds that are not blessed by the devs, so individuals
> can easily share their work with the larger Gentoo community. If one
> choses such and ebuild there on their own. The gentoo devs should
> develop a semantic where folks not officially part of the devs can
> maintain a package or two, rather than making ebuilds for obsolescence,
> unilaterally.
>
>
> 5. Trustees can be elected to one year terms. If trustees disagree
> on the direction of the majority of the other BOD members, they
> should be encouraged to aggregate with small bands of devs
> and build alternatives (such as Mr. McCreesh's alternative to
> portage)...... Forking of Gentoo is a good thing, not a bad thing.
> Deal with it. If you do not want forks, then, allow for flexibility.
> Be willing to integrate forks back into Gentoo, if feasible
> and the majority of users vote for it. Discussions of
> all issues should occur on Gentoo-politics or some such group.
> Not spread around the groups. Discussion of Gentoo's future
> exlusive by the devs reflects very poorly on gentoo and is
> ample evidence of exactly what's wrong with Gentoo.
>
>
> 6. Provide resources to the gentoo-embedded group to assist them
> in their efforts to assimilate embedded-gentoo into gentoo
> so that lots of ordinary users can build and experiment with
> embedded gentoo. Provide resources for  a seemless integration
> between gentoo-embedded and gentoo workstations and user
> to encourage the commercial creations of lots of devices that
> small companies can build, sell, support and make a living.
>
> 7. Provide direction and methodologies so both users and
> technical folks, can integrate Gentoo into the normal business
> practices in small and mid-size (service oriented) companies.
>
> 8. Provide wikis for those requisite areas where folks can use
> gentoo technologies to incubate, start, build and run business
> centric to gentoo, such as legalese, accounting pricipals,
> basic marketing, how to build a gentoo E commerce server, etc. etc.

The above three suggestions are probably the most important in establishing a 
viable business model for Gentoo, ensuring its growth (on a 
societal/commercial pull, rather than a technocratic, elitist push basis).  
If developed enough it has the potential to threaten Redmond in a real way!

> 9. Provide a clear migration path for novices to wanna-bee to techie to
> entrepreneur to persons with a successful financial status to
> a state of being self determinant. Mentoring, wikis and advise: a place for
> entrepreneurs and techies to meet, hang out (on-line) and
> aggregate into startup companies.
>
> 10. Celebrate the uniqueness that we all have  and respect the choices
> that the individual uses gentoo for, for what the individual determines
> Gentoo should be used for. Loose the attitude that if you use Gentoo
> to make money, you are creating some form of evil. Quite the opposite
> is true; IMHO.

I don't think many people believe that using Gentoo to earn a living is evil.  
I believe the model of open software development is well proven and charging 
for offering a service is not in contrast to it.

Let's hope that such proposals are discussed and developed adequately to 
secure Gentoo's survival and push it in a path of growth.  What do we need to 
do next?
-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]