1 |
On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 08:04 +0000, Steve Long wrote: |
2 |
> You amaze me: you lower the tone of the discourse with your belligerent |
3 |
> comments, state I am "running my mouth as usual" and then wish to accuse me |
4 |
> of "ad hominem." |
5 |
|
6 |
My apologies. I took your response as a personal attack, not as an |
7 |
observation of the past trustees, as a whole. You're correct. We |
8 |
failed pretty miserably. |
9 |
|
10 |
> I took it as read that no-one was trying to state that the previous Trustees |
11 |
> had stepped up to the plate. Anyone who's followed the history will have read |
12 |
> many assertions about it not being something the devs were good at, nor would |
13 |
> we want them to be. If you're maintaining that all was well with the |
14 |
> Foundation, it's an interesting point-of-view. |
15 |
|
16 |
I never said all was well. In fact, I've said quite the opposite for a |
17 |
while now. At any rate, I apologize again for reading your "you" and |
18 |
"your" as personal to me, since you were responding to me. |
19 |
|
20 |
> > No, it really doesn't take any managerial capability. The trustees are |
21 |
> > *not* managers. |
22 |
> So let's get this straight: Council and devs deal with the technical side |
23 |
> (let's call this the software development) and Trustees deal with the |
24 |
> "staff/financial/legal" matters. Anywhere else that would be called |
25 |
> "organisational" matters, which would need managerial oversight. |
26 |
|
27 |
The trustees have not managed the staff. Originally, the "staff" all |
28 |
fell under Daniel. When the original metastructure (managers, prior to |
29 |
Council, and Foundation) was created, the staff positions fell under the |
30 |
managers. In the Council scheme, they still fell under the Council. |
31 |
They likely *should* fall under the trustees, but they currently do not. |
32 |
As such, they don't manage anything but money/paperwork. |
33 |
|
34 |
> > They do not tell anyone what to do, nor do they lead |
35 |
> > the project in any way. The trustees are paper pushers. I'm sorry if |
36 |
> > you don't realize that, but there's only so many times that it can be |
37 |
> > said before it becomes obvious that you're either ignoring it, or too |
38 |
> > dense to comprehend it. I'll let you decide which. |
39 |
> > |
40 |
> See below, but thanks for showing the way to keep things civil. Just as |
41 |
> feedback to improve this: if you had stopped at "paper pushers," perhaps |
42 |
> adding "That's all there is to it," it would have made the point without |
43 |
> lowering the tone. |
44 |
|
45 |
Indeed. As I've said, I read things wrong and got overly defensive. My |
46 |
apologies. I have stated that point several times, though, and it does |
47 |
get a bit old repeating it. I'll try to watch what I say a bit better |
48 |
and try not to take people talking trash about past trustees personally. |
49 |
One thing that many people forget is that while the "current" trustees |
50 |
(including myself and the others that were trustees with me) dropped the |
51 |
ball, so did all the previous ones. We were left with quite a big mess |
52 |
to clean up and we all dropped the ball as soon as we started hitting |
53 |
difficulty. |
54 |
|
55 |
> > Yes, because his organizational skills at organizing FOSDEM for Gentoo |
56 |
> > was excellent. In fact, his skills were so good that several developers |
57 |
> > got left in the cold for over an hour, waiting for transportation that |
58 |
> > Patrick had promised and which never arrived. How about the demo |
59 |
> > machines that Patrick lined up for the show? Oh, that's right, SeJo, |
60 |
> > pvdabeel, and myself had to do that the day of the show because Patrick |
61 |
> > didn't do anything. |
62 |
> > |
63 |
> Sounds like most of the chief executives I've come across, who are normally |
64 |
> reliant on PAs to actually arrange anything. Thank you however for backing up |
65 |
> your assertion with reasons: it would have been nice if you had stated this |
66 |
> in the first place, instead of just rolling your eyes and expecting us to |
67 |
> accept that ebuild developing had anything to do with the Trustees. |
68 |
|
69 |
I had assumed that it was fairly common knowledge. There was a lot of |
70 |
talk about it, but now that I think about it, that discussion might have |
71 |
been more private than I recall. I'll try to back up my statements more |
72 |
when making them. I sometimes forget that not everyone knows the same |
73 |
information that I do and tend to take for granted that people are as |
74 |
aware of things as I am within Gentoo. |
75 |
|
76 |
> He's still much better at motivation and empathising with his colleagues. I've |
77 |
> seen him help and motivate loads of people, including some of your |
78 |
> developers. |
79 |
|
80 |
Sure, I've not said anything about his motivational skills. All I spoke |
81 |
of was his organizational/management skills. Many of us don't feel that |
82 |
Patrick has the ability to do these things. He has good ideas, he just |
83 |
doesn't follow through/implement them well. |
84 |
|
85 |
> > Now, you can call it a personal attack if you wish. I hope that you |
86 |
> > realize that I don't care what your opinion is on pretty much anything. |
87 |
> > While I've been working to improve Gentoo, you sit on the sidelines and |
88 |
> > tell everybody how poorly they're doing. |
89 |
> I think you have me confused with someone else. |
90 |
|
91 |
Probably... |
92 |
|
93 |
> No, it was the "*rolls eyes*" and a snipe about someone's history as a |
94 |
> developer disqualifying them as a Trustee, with no *facts* given which made |
95 |
> it sound like a personal attack. Thank you for finally providing some attempt |
96 |
> at reasoning, along with your usual ad hominem towards me. |
97 |
|
98 |
Yeah, I should have said so sooner. Also, I never said he would be |
99 |
disqualified or ineligible. Patrick is certainly eligible, and if he |
100 |
decides to run and wins, then more power to him. I simply wanted to |
101 |
point out that Patrick has a track record within Gentoo that *I* think |
102 |
would make him a poor candidate for trustee. Of course, you also don't |
103 |
see me running for the trustees, either. I don't think that *I* would |
104 |
make a good candidate, either. |
105 |
|
106 |
> > Sure, Patrick has contributed quite a bit via his gentooexperimental |
107 |
> > project, but that doesn't change the *facts* of his time as a Gentoo |
108 |
> > developer. |
109 |
> > |
110 |
> I find it more cogent that he has contributed and maintained that |
111 |
> infrastructure for innovation, as well as the huge amount of QA for the tree, |
112 |
> as something other than a Gentoo dev. The last couple of months has shown |
113 |
> that, while Gentoo is fine as a piece of software, as a project there is a |
114 |
> serious disconnect with its user base. So it seems that where the project |
115 |
> needs new thinking is not really on the technical development side. |
116 |
|
117 |
No, it needs help in many of its staff positions, such as |
118 |
Infrastructure, PR, Events, etc. to help promote Gentoo. This doesn't |
119 |
have to be the trustees job, nor should it be. The trustees are there |
120 |
to be liaisons between the legal (pro bono lawyers, paid lawyers, SFLC, |
121 |
whatever), the IRS (taxes, accountants?), and the Gentoo Foundation |
122 |
membership. Unlike the Council, the trustees aren't really *supposed* |
123 |
to *lead* anyone, anywhere. The trustees are *supposed* to perform the |
124 |
will of the general Foundation membership. Only in very rare cases |
125 |
would I ever see the trustees going against the general consensus, and |
126 |
that would be a case where the general consensus doesn't match US law. |
127 |
|
128 |
> Perhaps the Trustees should have a wider remit than the one you envision as |
129 |
> paper-pushers with a narrow *legal* remit. Although you mention staff |
130 |
> relations, and financial matters as well, you seem to be unaware overseeing |
131 |
> this requires managerial capability, along the lines drobbins has mentioned. |
132 |
|
133 |
Perhaps, but they do not now. |
134 |
|
135 |
> It's not about being a lawyer, an accountant or an HR person: it's about |
136 |
> managing them, with an overview of all three, and the impact it has on the |
137 |
> people who make the product. |
138 |
|
139 |
Currently, the trustees don't fill those roles. |
140 |
|
141 |
> Patrick, like drobbins, understands the developer culture. While the |
142 |
> discussion may be moot, in that I don't think he wants to stand, the topics |
143 |
> we have discussed are relevant: should the Trustees be strictly confined to |
144 |
> dealing with legal matters? If so, who is to deal with the other areas, given |
145 |
> that developers have enough to do maintaining the software? |
146 |
|
147 |
It has been left to the Council to run "the distribution" which tends to |
148 |
cover all aspects of managing and maintaining the distribution. |
149 |
Personally, I'd *love* to see the trustees/Foundation take over *all* of |
150 |
the more organizational roles, but that would be something for the new |
151 |
trustees and the Council to decide. |
152 |
|
153 |
-- |
154 |
Chris Gianelloni |
155 |
Release Engineering Strategic Lead |
156 |
Games Developer |
157 |
-- |
158 |
gentoo-nfp@l.g.o mailing list |