Re: [gentoo-nfp] drobbins, leadership, etc.

[John Alberts]

> There was talk of a vote on -core.
Unfortunately, it's completely private, so the community has no idea what is
being discussed.  I think this is the real problem.  Lack of communication.
Lack of transparency.  -core should at least be read only and archived for
users to see what's going on.

With the lack of communication and updates on the Gentoo front page and lack
of GWN releases, and a missed 2007.1 release, users get the impression that
nothing is happening and things must be declining.  Happy Gentoo users get
outraged because this wonderful distribution *seems* to be withering away
because of the lack of transparency and communication.   When in fact, as
many have pointed out, new and updated ebuilds are put in portage every
day.  Lot's of devs are constantly at work in the background keeping things
going, but there's a lack of people to keep the community informed properly.

I don't know any of the devs personally, and I'm not a dev, but I hate
seeing some of these comments coming through putting all of this blame on
the devs.  They are volunteers, doing what they enjoy, and they'll be doing
it for as long as it makes him/her happy.

I support bringing drobbins back because my hope is that he will help
implement the needed direction and transparency that Gentoo needs to
succeed; however, drobbins needs to elaborate on what his intentions are and
how he plans to implement these changes before any decision is made.  I
would hope that he joins this discussion to help provide a good solution for
everyone.

John Alberts




On Jan 16, 2008 5:43 PM, Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> wrote:

> On 1/16/08, James Laslavic <squarebottle@×××××.com> wrote:
> > A lot of people are talking about how "There shouldn't just be one
> > person!" Well, couple things.
> >
> > The biggest issue that these people have forgotten is that as it is
> > right now, there is only one trustee. All the others have retired or
> > been AWOL for a while now, and the same goes for the rest of the
> > foundation, pretty much.
>
> If you assume no one is working on stuff you are wrong and there are
> at least three folks actively working to figure out what our options
> are (and there is me, annoying the hell out of them to make sure we
> are making progress).
>
> >
> > And if being democratic is the big goal, then don't forget that the
> > community overwhelmingly supports his return.
>
> You have provided no metric.  All I know is that a subset of folks
> want him back.
> (not that we are ignoring that subset, but that doesn't mean they
> represent everyone).
>
> >
> > If you want to create a system of checks and balances, then great! Bring
> > your ideas to the table when we have enough people showing up to pass
> > this kind of legislation! But right now, we've got to face the facts:
> >
> > 1) Things are not getting done.
> > 2) Gentoo is losing developers.
> > 3) Potential developers are choosing not to join.
>
> 2 and 3 are both incorrect IMHO.  We don't have enough recruiters to
> recruit all the folks that want to be devs; so that nixes 3.  I don't
> have the numbers to refute 2 in front of me.
>
> > 4) The current Gentoo foundation has had several months to fix all the
> > above.
>
> Chris said he faxed paperwork to NM and that this was a surprise;
> certainly I'm not happy with the progress made here and there are
> folks who are working on it.
>
> > 5) Daniel Robbins offering to come back is not happening out of the blue
> > because "he feels like he wants power," but is happening in response to
> > the dire situation painted by the above issues.
> >
> > There are developers who want to see him return, and there are
> > developers that don't. This is normal. However, take a look at the
> > numbers. The people that stayed when he left will likely consist of
> > people that don't want to see him return because, after all, the reason
> > they didn't leave with him is because they weren't on his side then. As
> > such, it's not really very representative of anything, as any pollster
> > or statistician can tell you. When you look at the entire Gentoo
> > community though including all the developers that left back then and
> > all the developers that do not want to join the current Gentoo, it
> > overwhelmingly supports Daniel Robbins' return.
>
> Again, overwhelmingly is a strong term ;)
>
> >
> > I wish I could see some people be mature and say, "You know, I
> > personally don't think this is the best idea, but the community seems to
> > think it knows better, so I'm not going to try to block the whole
> > community."
>
> I don't think many devs actually outright want to say no.  Most devs
> want more concrete terms (and they are working on getting them from
> Daniel).
>
> >
> > Also note that technically, Daniel Robbins already owns all the
> > trademarks and stuff again because when the charter was revoked, all
> > contracts and stuff (such as the transfer of rights) was legally
> > nullified. He's pretty much just being polite by asking.
>
> It's false because as far as I'm aware the Foundation never owned any
> trademarks and the copyrights for most code in it's present form is
> still owned by the author (which is not Daniel for the vast majority
> of code in the tree today).
>
> >
> > In any case, whatever you believe should happen, we can all agree that a
> > decision must be reached somehow. Debate is healthy, but we need a way
> > of officially deciding what will happen. Perhaps an organized election?
> > I mean, how do you want to do this? It's got to be done sometime (unless
> > you're trying to filibuster all this of course, which would just be
> lame).
>
> There was talk of a vote on -core.  I think the current decision is
> that we need to investigate the alternatives before we can vote on
> them; hence we are getting our paperwork in order to get advice from
> our legal team.
>
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Square Bottle
> > www.visualflavor.org
> >
> >
> > gibbonsr-ml@××××××××××××××××××.com wrote:
> > > Why does one person have to be the Dictator.  We need a single
> governing
> > > body, but `body` doesn't have to mean one person
> > >
> > > Have the council do what they do, manage the devs, but have the
> council
> > > report the foudnation.  Foundation members should be assigned areas
> and
> > > required to attend everything with area, basically a part of that
> > > board.  So the council actually has one or two members in the
> > > foundation, the userrel actually has one or two members in the
> > > foundation.  They report to the overall group what is going on in
> gentoo.
> > >
> > > If Daniel wants the join the foundation / trustee's, then great, let
> him
> > > do it from there with a team of people.
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Senno During" <senno.during@×××××.com>
> > > To: gentoo-nfp@l.g.o
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 4:44:33 PM (GMT-0600)
> America/Chicago
> > > Subject: Re: [gentoo-nfp] drobbins, leadership, etc.
> > >
> > > this is my feeling too. So far drobbins has given an option. i have
> > > heard good things about it, and bad things about it. Though, no
> > > alternative is known to me. i hope to hear about one soon!
> > >
> > > i also believe there will always be devs/users (are pretty important
> > > too i think!) that are not going to be happy with the choice that is
> > > going to be made.
> > >
> > > i do feel that Gentoo, currently, needs a sort of dictator, like Linux
> > > with Torvalds. Of course, you always hope for the right choice and
> right
> > > ideas from the leader then. But no decisions being made by a group,
> just to
> > > prevent a dictator style, doesn't sound right to me either.
> > >
> > > Senno During
> > >
> > > On Jan 16, 2008 11:09 PM, Sergey Kuleshov <svyatogor@×××××.com> wrote:
> > >  > I'd second almost everything Caleb said. I do feel, that Daniel
> should
> > >  > come back. And if he does I'll try to come back to the developers
> > >  > (which I left some time ago). not that I think this will make any
> > >  > difference, but just wanted to express my opinion as well.
> > >  >
> > >  > and when I hear peoples' concerns about handing him control of
> Gentoo,
> > >  > I have only one question in return - any better options? cause what
> we
> > >  > have now proved to be quite a failure.
> > >  >
> > >  >
> > >  > On Jan 16, 2008 10:07 PM,  <gibbonsr-ml@××××××××××××××××××.com>
> wrote:
> > >  > > That WooHoo feeling seems to be held by most, Honestly at first i
> > > was there
> > >  > > also.
> > >  > >
> > >  > > But now that I've calmed down, and started reading through
> > > everything I do
> > >  > > not share the feeling.  Do I think Daniel can help? Yes.  Should
> we
> > > accept
> > >  > > his current offer by Friday? No.  Why?  Many reasons, some having
> > > to do with
> > >  > > the fact we just don't know enough.  Another one is he is wanted
> > >  > > unquestionable control ... which is dangerous to give to anybody,
> > > no matter
> > >  > > how great the man once was.  Would we give JFK or Lincoln
> complete
> > > control
> > >  > > of the US, no checks, no balances .. no. (sorry to the non-us
> > > citizens for
> > >  > > that example, best I could come up with in such sort notice).
> > >  > >
> > >  > > I know Daniel can help, but I also believe anybody who is
> committed
> > > enough
> > >  > > can help.  Somebody needs to take this personal, and take it as a
> > > part-time
> > >  > > job and execute on actions, and be held accountable for what they
> > > did or
> > >  > > didn't do.
> > >  > >
> > >  > > The past is the past, both good and bad.  I think if Daniel would
> > > sit down
> > >  > > with the Foundation, trustee, council and even allow others to
> join and
> > >  > > listen (not speak, but listen) and then hash out a set of
> > > guidelines .. then
> > >  > > great.  But we shouldn't accept him blindly and unconditionally
> at this
> > >  > > point in time.  If Daniel doesn't want to sit down and talk this
> > > out, then
> > >  > > he doesn't need to be back.
> > >  > >
> > >  > >
> > >  > >
> > >  > > ----- Original Message -----
> > >  > > From: "John Alberts" <john.m.alberts@×××××.com>
> > >  > > To: "Caleb Cushing" <xenoterracide@×××××.com>
> > >  > > Cc: gentoo-nfp@l.g.o
> > >  > > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 3:54:00 PM (GMT-0600)
> America/Chicago
> > >  > > Subject: Re: [gentoo-nfp] drobbins, leadership, etc.
> > >  > >
> > >  > > It might be prudent to back up your claims, conclusions, and
> > > suggestion with
> > >  > > some type of fact.  I'm not saying I disagree or agree with you,
> but
> > >  > > basically, all you said was "WooHoo! Bring back Robbins!"
> > >  > >
> > >  > >  John Alberts
> > >  > >
> > >  > >
> > >  > > On Jan 16, 2008 3:43 PM, Caleb Cushing <xenoterracide@×××××.com>
> wrote:
> > >  > > > just joining the conversation. I vote to bring drobbins back.
> > > Even though
> > >  > > i as
> > >  > > > a user/admin and potential future developer, have no vote.
> > >  > > >
> > >  > > > I would also like to note that under the current leadership, of
> > > which I
> > >  > > have
> > >  > > > no confidence, I have no desire to be a gentoo developer. were
> this
> > >  > > > leadership to change and with some more improvement of my own
> > > skills I
> > >  > > would
> > >  > > > consider it. I of course do not believe this decision is based
> on
> > > me, and
> > >  > > am
> > >  > > > not attempting to inflate my own worth. but am merely pointing
> > > out that I
> > >  > > may
> > >  > > > not be the only person who feels this way.
> > >  > > > --
> > >  > > > Caleb Cushing
> > >  > > >
> > >  > > > PGP keys available on key server
> > >  > > > wwwkeys.us.pgp.net
> > >  > > >
> > >  > > > Due to low Internet availability I may not check
> > >  > > > my email more than once a week, and thus cannot
> > >  > > > guarantee a response time.
> > >  > > >
> > >  > >
> > >  > >
> > >  > >
> > >  > > --
> > >  > > Ryan Gibbons
> > >  > > 817.657.1780
> > >  > > gibbonsr@××××××××××××××××××.com
> > >  > >
> > >  >
> > >  >
> > >  >
> > >  > --
> > >  > Sergey Kuleshov    <svyatogor@×××××.com>
> > >  > Jabber: svyatogor@×××××.com
> > >  > ICQ: 158439855
> > >  > --
> > >  > gentoo-nfp@l.g.o mailing list
> > >  >
> > >  >
> > > --
> > > gentoo-nfp@l.g.o mailing list
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ryan Gibbons
> > > 817.657.1780
> > > gibbonsr@××××××××××××××××××.com
> > --
> > gentoo-nfp@l.g.o mailing list
> >
> >
> --
> gentoo-nfp@l.g.o mailing list
>
>