From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JE0JC-0003ds-Uz for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 13 Jan 2008 10:43:19 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 052CBE0A70; Sun, 13 Jan 2008 10:42:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (ug-out-1314.google.com [66.249.92.174]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14650E09C5 for ; Sun, 13 Jan 2008 10:42:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id j3so742335ugf.49 for ; Sun, 13 Jan 2008 02:42:54 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:reply-to:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:message-id; bh=bdm6w3nAbfgZHURsf6bqtFPsmL2mf1GNJZ706u+l8EE=; b=q+GxsSeELTvIimUEHpFyJ3cPnzX3h2mKajEI+ipVBhtmC2YCTYcG9sjzYx/dEWCvtvfrIafwr2UYKYaszr854ns2Dbhvdb0wqHh+H7dvPnrOsoYPrd/evo/YxskxuEplQZVEFMR0MkAwf4vf7QGIje52n2Rl7HFjy5hxoQ0S8z8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:reply-to:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:message-id; b=J/xdQyZ6urM1TbWUK2FQAD8j3QJQol+/rEszAO5eaFySFV4lcodynuCx9mJdcnBPiya/MzHuDveCIv2Ny0y0pk1PNp17znny2v35TuBFH5JNNtYpruemyDyLzsy4dJQ/55DIW7yxuGqg9apu6DaOV43kNpf3ZAOqDZyz1UP/si8= Received: by 10.67.115.4 with SMTP id s4mr1987286ugm.41.1200220974282; Sun, 13 Jan 2008 02:42:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from lappy.study ( [213.162.120.196]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x26sm5943241ugc.61.2008.01.13.02.42.52 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 13 Jan 2008 02:42:53 -0800 (PST) From: Mick To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Daniel Robbins' come back ? Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 10:41:36 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: <1200129071.4788842fc5816@imp.free.fr> <200801121231.42265.alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1856502.MEjezF2RG1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200801131041.51803.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> X-Archives-Salt: 672e21d4-3b13-4bfe-87a5-3315dea0ac06 X-Archives-Hash: bee0dc5c4f6fea34a2a0a0dac0573e2c --nextPart1856502.MEjezF2RG1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline 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=20 immaturity of certain persons (if Alan's previous critique re.treating=20 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=20 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. =20 Exactly. But this may have to do with his (and others) disagreement with=20 Ciaran? =20 > But then again=20 > 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 gent= oo > community. Dunno..... I don't know either, but as you have suggested in your previous message and= =20 also propose below there are ways of putting checks and balances in place t= o=20 ensure that: 1. Strategic direction is decided by the wider community in a democratic wa= y,=20 while preserving the Gentoo principles (i.e. the majority of *future* users= =20 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= =20 that they enable the strategic direction and objectives to be achieved. 3. An administrative body with responsible and professional individuals is= =20 elected to undertake the necessary tasks required to keep Gentoo operating= =20 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=20 attract different skillsets and personality profiles. So it makes sense to= =20 define them separately, especially as it will offer a focus for succinct=20 deliverables and responsibilities. The boundaries of decision making are=20 clear and if life changing moments arrive the the whole Gentoo community is= =20 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=20 viable business model for Gentoo, ensuring its growth (on a=20 societal/commercial pull, rather than a technocratic, elitist push basis). = =20 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 f= or > 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 evi= l. =20 I believe the model of open software development is well proven and chargin= g=20 for offering a service is not in contrast to it. Let's hope that such proposals are discussed and developed adequately to=20 secure Gentoo's survival and push it in a path of growth. What do we need = to=20 do next? =2D-=20 Regards, Mick --nextPart1856502.MEjezF2RG1 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBHierv5Fp0QerLYPcRAkF1AKDDcSk0F7d0O9mtfM1noGSshliEwgCgwp5j bomKA2wO5oK8xCQY5D4OXP8= =bs4I -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1856502.MEjezF2RG1-- -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list