Gentoo Archives: gentoo-nfp

From: Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o>
To: gentoo-nfp@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-nfp] Points to Ponder for Sundays Meeting.
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 07:12:28
Message-Id: 1208586626.25933.13.camel@inertia.twi-31o2.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-nfp] Points to Ponder for Sundays Meeting. by Roy Bamford
On Sat, 2008-04-19 at 01:15 +0100, Roy Bamford wrote:
> > Perhaps if it were worded more so that it allowed for someone to > > retain > > their status only if they vote. That should be close enough to the > > current way things are without forcing people out. > > I'm a little uncomfortable with that as it would mean identifying votes > with individuals. Not publicly but that information would have to be > knowable if membership were tied to voting.
Well, we already track who voted today for Foundation membership. Remember, all we need to know is if someone voted, not what their vote *was* per se.
> What about having retired devs apply for membership annually ?
I wouldn't have a problem with it. Perhaps if we sent out something basically like: - Check if Foundation member - Check if retired in LDAP - If so, send a reminder email a week or so before nominations start/the initial meeting - If the person doesn't vote, they're out
> The idea here being able to keep individual votes secret.
Indeed.
> I certainly don't want to forcibly retire active foundation members.
Agreed. I just see that there are certain people that I am sure would love to have their voices heard in the Foundation, without devoting so much time directly to Gentoo development. I bet guys like drobbins and seemant would love to still have some input, without having to rejoin the development staff or run as a trustee. After all, if we increase the member -> trustee communications, which I think you guys have done a decent job trying to do so far, we could see good changes coming from the Foundation side. Here's a good example. I've been to several shows and conferences. Once of the major things that people seem really interested in Gentoo for is embedded work. We don't really have a lot of embedded people within Gentoo. Now, let's say that the Foundation decided that its membership thinks embedded is somewhere we should focus some resources. The Foundation could go and purchase some developer hardware, either to be hosted or to be sent to individuals. They could also recruit specifically for embedded positions. The new developers would be accountable to the Council and general Gentoo policy, but the person could, if desired, bypass some of the normal "Gentoo developer" recruitment. Let's say the person was going to be a coder, and not do anything with ebuilds. The Foundation could even have its own repositories, allowing non-Gentoo developers to commit code without having to become a "Gentoo developer" and deal with Gentoo policy/politics. We have countless examples on nearly every list of people who would like to contribute, have the skills and the time necessary, but don't want to deal with the day-to-day of Gentoo. We should cater to these people. Of course, I also think that Gentoo should "splinter" a bit more. I think that we've grown beyond the scope of a single vision and single goals, so some internal "forking" might be helpful. What I mean is create multiple "levels" of developer, without necessarily creating a closed environment. We already somewhat have this with the herds, but this would be extending it a bit further. Basically, we'd have "Gentoo developers" and "Gentoo staff" and finally "Gentoo contributors" who would have access to certain resources, but not the main infrastructure. A contributor would get access to what he needs, without getting things like a Gentoo email address or being subscribed to -core. As overlays become more and more common, this seems like a good way to go. I also think that we should start using overlays more. New projects should get an overlay "for free" essentially. This would allow them to recruit people to work without having to make them become developers. Code moves from the overlays to the main tree would still happen via a "Gentoo developer" and would be checked. This is essentially proxy maintaining, but with the external maintainer getting direct access to a revision control system to do their work. Stealing a (rather good, honestly) idea from Sunrise, we could even recruit some people in a more "overlay wranglers" role. Basically, they would be the people to check and verify ebuilds from the overlays and move them to the main tree. We really should push and legitimize overlays. They're a very powerful tool. Anyway, I apologize for going so off-topic. I just wanted to get my ideas out while they were still fresh in my head so I could have time to respond to anything prior to the meeting, since I won't be in attendance. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Games Developer

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-nfp] Points to Ponder for Sundays Meeting. Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o>