| 1 |
On Mon, 2008-05-19 at 19:55 -0400, Richard Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: |
| 3 |
> > |
| 4 |
> > Put it like this, Council answers to devs. Foundation answers to |
| 5 |
> > community. At some point the council should answer to the Foundation as |
| 6 |
> > well. Otherwise the community has no voice, only developers. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I think we need to be careful here. I wouldn't say that the Foundation |
| 10 |
> answers to the community or represents the community. Rather, I'd say |
| 11 |
> that the Foundation serves the community. The community is our mission |
| 12 |
> - not our source of authority. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
It's a little of both. Less we forget the community are a couple of |
| 15 |
things, users, sponsors, donors, etc. Most all devs start out as users, |
| 16 |
so answering to the community and being accountable there is important. |
| 17 |
But granted only part of the mission, not the entire mission. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> The reason this concerns me is that we really need to avoid an |
| 20 |
> us-against-them mentality. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
There is none of that. No political parties etc. Just the one Gentoo :) |
| 23 |
Dev's are part of the community. Just in a form, that they can remain a |
| 24 |
member of the foundation long after they are no longer a dev if they so |
| 25 |
choose. Depending on how the bylaws are updated and if there is a term |
| 26 |
limit put there. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> The devs are all volunteers and we can't |
| 29 |
> really afford to have those who aren't volunteering perceived as issuing |
| 30 |
> orders to those who are volunteering. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Delegation and asking people to do things as part of structure is |
| 33 |
normal. Ever help out at a food kitchen? Ever or other types of |
| 34 |
volunteering? Usually there is someone directing the action. I won't go |
| 35 |
so far as to say boss, but they are calling the shots and delegating. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
> I think the role of the |
| 38 |
> Foundation is to inspire the devs to do what is right - not to order |
| 39 |
> them to do so. I think most devs have respect for the effort the |
| 40 |
> trustees are putting into getting the Foundation running and what it |
| 41 |
> stands for. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
Gentoo is not 100% the developer base. I was a user before I was a |
| 44 |
developer, and my history as user is still longer than my history as a |
| 45 |
developer. If/when I retire, unless there is something better than |
| 46 |
Gentoo. I will still run it, and be a member of the community. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
> As a result, I think that the Foundation will be heard when |
| 49 |
> it speaks, at least more so than a bunch of end-users who are perceived |
| 50 |
> as always asking for more but never giving back. (I use the word |
| 51 |
> "perceived" as I know the reality is more complex.) |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
The foundation was essentially supposed to do allot of things for Gentoo |
| 54 |
it never has. So it will be heard, seen, and have an influence unlike |
| 55 |
before. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
> I couldn't have said this better. There have been those who have |
| 58 |
> recently been looking towards the trustees to essentially make the devs |
| 59 |
> fall into line, and I think that what you've said emphasizes the balance |
| 60 |
> and care required to make the distro a success. |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
All things require a balance. Thus creating a better hierarchy with |
| 63 |
checks and balances. So that all are represented in an equal and fair |
| 64 |
manner. All can be heard, have influence, etc. Gentoo can be all it can |
| 65 |
be :) |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
-- |
| 68 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |
| 69 |
amd64/Java/Trustees |
| 70 |
Gentoo Foundation |
Archives