| 1 |
> The coop is a brand new idea. Nobody has really done |
| 2 |
> anything like it before, so it's likely to take a great deal |
| 3 |
> of thought and effort to get set up correctly. I'd hate to |
| 4 |
> see the Gentoo NFP efforts get delayed as a result. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
I agree. I think I have been trying to solve too many problems at once |
| 7 |
rather than approach this one step at a time. I am a perfectionist. It's |
| 8 |
also human nature to try to make "version 2" of something incredibly complex |
| 9 |
and sophisticated so as to solve all problems with "version 1". This |
| 10 |
tendency is called "the second system effect." And it looks like I've fallen |
| 11 |
victim to the second system effect in planning the next entity for Gentoo. |
| 12 |
Because of my desire to not let anyone down, I've become paralyzed and am |
| 13 |
letting everyone down. That's not my intention. We can address the funding |
| 14 |
issues later and get the NFP set up this month. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> > My personal $.02: |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> I'd like to see a closed, non-co-optable model. Both models |
| 19 |
> have their weaknesses, but I think the open one is more |
| 20 |
> susceptible to groupthink, not to mention coersion. I think |
| 21 |
> a closed model, combined with an active, vocal community |
| 22 |
> (which Gentoo certainly has) allows for a solid feedback loop |
| 23 |
> without running the risks of coersion. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
It would be incredibly helpful to me to get a consensus on the type of model |
| 26 |
(either closed and non-co-optable or open and potentially co-optable) that |
| 27 |
people would prefer for the NFP. I, like Kurt, lean towards the closed model |
| 28 |
but I also realize that I will likely be part of this "closed" group so my |
| 29 |
viewpoint may be skewed. I have also had some concerns about the conduct and |
| 30 |
effectiveness of the management team, but I think that those issues can |
| 31 |
probably be addressed by having better-defined standards and policies (such |
| 32 |
as the draft "IMPORTANT: devrel procedure (long)" email I posted to -core |
| 33 |
earlier today. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
I have been trying to figure out a perfect organizational model for the NFP |
| 36 |
that will meet everyone's expectations and wants. This is probably a fool's |
| 37 |
errand -- some decisions need to be made that by their nature exclude other |
| 38 |
possibilities. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
The key decision to make is whether the NFP is membership-based (and open to |
| 41 |
take-over) or non-membership (and thus by its nature non-democratic.) It |
| 42 |
seems like most are OK with an NFP that |
| 43 |
Is not open to take-over and is held accountable by the fact that developers |
| 44 |
and users can vote with their feet. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
I am scheduling an appointment with my lawyer early next week. If I can get |
| 47 |
a consensus from list members about the organizational model of the NFP, I |
| 48 |
can get him started on the paperwork. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
Regards, |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
Daniel |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
-- |
| 56 |
gentoo-nfp@g.o mailing list |
Archives