Re: [gentoo-nfp] Please restore gentoo - leadership structure needs fixed..

[Chris Gianelloni]

On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 18:45 -0500, Dirk R. Gently wrote:
> Thank you trustees for reading this.  I am a Gentoo user and really
> enjoy the Gentoo distribution.  Thank you trustees for making this
> available to me.  As it is though, isn't working.  Gentoo remains
> drifting with little leadership.  I am a supporter of Daniel Robbin's
> offer to help get Gentoo into a proper leadership structure.  I ask
> that this be done and I believe this is the general consensus:

It's easy to make a decision when you're not the one who has to live
with it.  It's also easy to make a decision when someone else has to do
all the work.

Most developers will agree that we need some sort of direction.  Daniel
could very well provide that direction and help Gentoo, tremendously,
but he has given some "strings" to his offer that essentially gives him
complete control of Gentoo.  While Daniel is a very great guy and
certainly can be considered a visionary, I do not personally believe
that *any* one person is capable of holding the reins for all of Gentoo.
If Daniel were to stick to the Foundation side of things, focusing on
Gentoo's relationships with other companies, projects, etc. and worked
on promoting Gentoo, I think we all would agree to have him back.
However, his blog post attaches quite a few strings that don't sit well
with the idea of an open and free community.  For one, he seems to make
no provisions for the Gentoo Council.  This council was elected by the
developer body to represent them.  Throwing that out is almost a slap in
the face to the community.

Sure, the Council could use a little direction.  Honestly, many people
are afraid to take action because *every* action results in huge flame
wars and complaints.  Having someone like Daniel (could be anyone,
really) to provide a vision for Gentoo would be beneficial.  However,
the Council should be the responsible party for making sure that Gentoo
is moving in the right direction.  There was a separation of the legal
(Foundation) and technical (Council) bodies within Gentoo for a reason.
It allowed the technical side to work unimpeded by the legal side.

> Gentoo currently has alot of well trained users.  I have often seen
> many good ideas come to the forums but often they stop there because
> there is a lack of a leadership structure that is able to implement
> them.  Getting something done would require tracking down whom is
> responsible for the project (not always easy), discovering if that
> person is still active (or cares) about doing anything, and persuading
> that person into doing it (right now there is only a lot of talk.)

See, the problem that most people don't realize is that having a leader
won't change this.  A leader won't be able to get involved in every
little detail.  It's simply impossible with how much we've grown since
2002/2003, when Daniel was still around.  Having a leader to provide
*vision* and *direction* is very much possible and something that Gentoo
may well need.  Of course, empowering the Council to make these
decisions so they're not afraid of the repercussions could accomplish
the same goal.

What Daniel gives that no other person can truly give is someone to
rally behind.  Daniel started Gentoo.  As such, he has a unique position
which can *never* be filled by someone else.  However, that doesn't mean
that Gentoo *needs* Daniel to thrive.  Gentoo simply needs for the
leadership to know that whether people agree or not with their
decisions, that those decisions are respected and followed.  After all,
the Council *is* an elected body.  Every developer has a chance to voice
his concerns during the nomination period.  Every developer has a chance
to vote.  Every developer has a chance to run for Council and change
things himself/herself.
>
> Serious change is needed, and the value of Gentoo is necessary to many
> people.  Please foundation, accept Daniel's offer for the better of
> the entire community.  I just read his offer and time is important.
> If current trustees who are inactive please contact them and let them
> know of the proposal.

What makes you say that "serious change" is needed?  Sometimes a little
change goes a *very* long way.

We're looking into all of the options, including taking Daniel up on his
offer.  We plan on considering each and determining the best long-term
outcome for Gentoo.  No matter what we decide, I strongly encourage
Daniel to contribute to Gentoo.  After all, he *is* the original
visionary of Gentoo.  Even without any form of "official" status within
the ranks, his insights and ideas will *always* be considered, many
times much more heavily than other people's, simply because of who he is
and what he has done for Gentoo.

The trustees and developer pool are well aware of Daniel's proposal.
We've been discussing it internally, but are moving the discussion to
this list so it gets wider exposure.

Realize that certain aspects of Daniel's proposal leaves a very bad
taste in many developer's mouths.  For example, Daniel posted his
proposal on his blog.  He didn't email the trustees, council, pr, or any
other Gentoo organization.  He posted a blog entry.  While this likely
accomplished what I believe is Daniel's real goal, to get something
going and to provoke Gentoo into action, it lends one to wonder about
his motives.  After all, he could have just as easily posted to any of
the previously mentioned aliases, or even to our private -core internal
list.  Daniel has access to send to that list, as far as I am aware.

> Thank you Daniel for letting me know of this.  I was not aware that
> the Foundation has missed yet another required duty to make the
> community/distribution run.  I just read this and I am upset because I
> wish I had seen this sooner.  I wrote the trustees and support your
> proposal.  I ask though, if the trustees cannot be reached (that last
> post mentioned only two seem to be active) what can be done?  Does
> anyone have the active email addresses of the trustees.  Perhaps a
> email campaign by the Gentoo users can help.

Just a bit of history pertaining to this.  We were made aware, via
Daniel's blog, actually, of our status with New Mexico.  I personally
signed and faxed the paperwork for the New Mexico filing back in August.
As far as I knew, everything was taken care of with the Foundation.  We
were *totally* unaware that our status had changed for the worse and not
the better until Daniel's recent blog posts.

So, it isn't that we didn't do anything.  It's that we (likely) didn't
do it correctly.  As such, we're trying to resolve the issue via what we
consider the best means.  We're investigating all of our potential
solutions and will be enacting one soon.

I hope that this clears up some things.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Games Developer