1 |
A lot of people are talking about how "There shouldn't just be one |
2 |
person!" Well, couple things. |
3 |
|
4 |
The biggest issue that these people have forgotten is that as it is |
5 |
right now, there is only one trustee. All the others have retired or |
6 |
been AWOL for a while now, and the same goes for the rest of the |
7 |
foundation, pretty much. |
8 |
|
9 |
And if being democratic is the big goal, then don't forget that the |
10 |
community overwhelmingly supports his return. |
11 |
|
12 |
If you want to create a system of checks and balances, then great! Bring |
13 |
your ideas to the table when we have enough people showing up to pass |
14 |
this kind of legislation! But right now, we've got to face the facts: |
15 |
|
16 |
1) Things are not getting done. |
17 |
2) Gentoo is losing developers. |
18 |
3) Potential developers are choosing not to join. |
19 |
4) The current Gentoo foundation has had several months to fix all the |
20 |
above. |
21 |
5) Daniel Robbins offering to come back is not happening out of the blue |
22 |
because "he feels like he wants power," but is happening in response to |
23 |
the dire situation painted by the above issues. |
24 |
|
25 |
There are developers who want to see him return, and there are |
26 |
developers that don't. This is normal. However, take a look at the |
27 |
numbers. The people that stayed when he left will likely consist of |
28 |
people that don't want to see him return because, after all, the reason |
29 |
they didn't leave with him is because they weren't on his side then. As |
30 |
such, it's not really very representative of anything, as any pollster |
31 |
or statistician can tell you. When you look at the entire Gentoo |
32 |
community though including all the developers that left back then and |
33 |
all the developers that do not want to join the current Gentoo, it |
34 |
overwhelmingly supports Daniel Robbins' return. |
35 |
|
36 |
I wish I could see some people be mature and say, "You know, I |
37 |
personally don't think this is the best idea, but the community seems to |
38 |
think it knows better, so I'm not going to try to block the whole |
39 |
community." |
40 |
|
41 |
Also note that technically, Daniel Robbins already owns all the |
42 |
trademarks and stuff again because when the charter was revoked, all |
43 |
contracts and stuff (such as the transfer of rights) was legally |
44 |
nullified. He's pretty much just being polite by asking. |
45 |
|
46 |
In any case, whatever you believe should happen, we can all agree that a |
47 |
decision must be reached somehow. Debate is healthy, but we need a way |
48 |
of officially deciding what will happen. Perhaps an organized election? |
49 |
I mean, how do you want to do this? It's got to be done sometime (unless |
50 |
you're trying to filibuster all this of course, which would just be lame). |
51 |
|
52 |
Sincerely, |
53 |
Square Bottle |
54 |
www.visualflavor.org |
55 |
|
56 |
|
57 |
gibbonsr-ml@××××××××××××××××××.com wrote: |
58 |
> Why does one person have to be the Dictator. We need a single governing |
59 |
> body, but `body` doesn't have to mean one person |
60 |
> |
61 |
> Have the council do what they do, manage the devs, but have the council |
62 |
> report the foudnation. Foundation members should be assigned areas and |
63 |
> required to attend everything with area, basically a part of that |
64 |
> board. So the council actually has one or two members in the |
65 |
> foundation, the userrel actually has one or two members in the |
66 |
> foundation. They report to the overall group what is going on in gentoo. |
67 |
> |
68 |
> If Daniel wants the join the foundation / trustee's, then great, let him |
69 |
> do it from there with a team of people. |
70 |
> |
71 |
> |
72 |
> ----- Original Message ----- |
73 |
> From: "Senno During" <senno.during@×××××.com> |
74 |
> To: gentoo-nfp@l.g.o |
75 |
> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 4:44:33 PM (GMT-0600) America/Chicago |
76 |
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-nfp] drobbins, leadership, etc. |
77 |
> |
78 |
> this is my feeling too. So far drobbins has given an option. i have |
79 |
> heard good things about it, and bad things about it. Though, no |
80 |
> alternative is known to me. i hope to hear about one soon! |
81 |
> |
82 |
> i also believe there will always be devs/users (are pretty important |
83 |
> too i think!) that are not going to be happy with the choice that is |
84 |
> going to be made. |
85 |
> |
86 |
> i do feel that Gentoo, currently, needs a sort of dictator, like Linux |
87 |
> with Torvalds. Of course, you always hope for the right choice and right |
88 |
> ideas from the leader then. But no decisions being made by a group, just to |
89 |
> prevent a dictator style, doesn't sound right to me either. |
90 |
> |
91 |
> Senno During |
92 |
> |
93 |
> On Jan 16, 2008 11:09 PM, Sergey Kuleshov <svyatogor@×××××.com> wrote: |
94 |
> > I'd second almost everything Caleb said. I do feel, that Daniel should |
95 |
> > come back. And if he does I'll try to come back to the developers |
96 |
> > (which I left some time ago). not that I think this will make any |
97 |
> > difference, but just wanted to express my opinion as well. |
98 |
> > |
99 |
> > and when I hear peoples' concerns about handing him control of Gentoo, |
100 |
> > I have only one question in return - any better options? cause what we |
101 |
> > have now proved to be quite a failure. |
102 |
> > |
103 |
> > |
104 |
> > On Jan 16, 2008 10:07 PM, <gibbonsr-ml@××××××××××××××××××.com> wrote: |
105 |
> > > That WooHoo feeling seems to be held by most, Honestly at first i |
106 |
> was there |
107 |
> > > also. |
108 |
> > > |
109 |
> > > But now that I've calmed down, and started reading through |
110 |
> everything I do |
111 |
> > > not share the feeling. Do I think Daniel can help? Yes. Should we |
112 |
> accept |
113 |
> > > his current offer by Friday? No. Why? Many reasons, some having |
114 |
> to do with |
115 |
> > > the fact we just don't know enough. Another one is he is wanted |
116 |
> > > unquestionable control ... which is dangerous to give to anybody, |
117 |
> no matter |
118 |
> > > how great the man once was. Would we give JFK or Lincoln complete |
119 |
> control |
120 |
> > > of the US, no checks, no balances .. no. (sorry to the non-us |
121 |
> citizens for |
122 |
> > > that example, best I could come up with in such sort notice). |
123 |
> > > |
124 |
> > > I know Daniel can help, but I also believe anybody who is committed |
125 |
> enough |
126 |
> > > can help. Somebody needs to take this personal, and take it as a |
127 |
> part-time |
128 |
> > > job and execute on actions, and be held accountable for what they |
129 |
> did or |
130 |
> > > didn't do. |
131 |
> > > |
132 |
> > > The past is the past, both good and bad. I think if Daniel would |
133 |
> sit down |
134 |
> > > with the Foundation, trustee, council and even allow others to join and |
135 |
> > > listen (not speak, but listen) and then hash out a set of |
136 |
> guidelines .. then |
137 |
> > > great. But we shouldn't accept him blindly and unconditionally at this |
138 |
> > > point in time. If Daniel doesn't want to sit down and talk this |
139 |
> out, then |
140 |
> > > he doesn't need to be back. |
141 |
> > > |
142 |
> > > |
143 |
> > > |
144 |
> > > ----- Original Message ----- |
145 |
> > > From: "John Alberts" <john.m.alberts@×××××.com> |
146 |
> > > To: "Caleb Cushing" <xenoterracide@×××××.com> |
147 |
> > > Cc: gentoo-nfp@l.g.o |
148 |
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 3:54:00 PM (GMT-0600) America/Chicago |
149 |
> > > Subject: Re: [gentoo-nfp] drobbins, leadership, etc. |
150 |
> > > |
151 |
> > > It might be prudent to back up your claims, conclusions, and |
152 |
> suggestion with |
153 |
> > > some type of fact. I'm not saying I disagree or agree with you, but |
154 |
> > > basically, all you said was "WooHoo! Bring back Robbins!" |
155 |
> > > |
156 |
> > > John Alberts |
157 |
> > > |
158 |
> > > |
159 |
> > > On Jan 16, 2008 3:43 PM, Caleb Cushing <xenoterracide@×××××.com> wrote: |
160 |
> > > > just joining the conversation. I vote to bring drobbins back. |
161 |
> Even though |
162 |
> > > i as |
163 |
> > > > a user/admin and potential future developer, have no vote. |
164 |
> > > > |
165 |
> > > > I would also like to note that under the current leadership, of |
166 |
> which I |
167 |
> > > have |
168 |
> > > > no confidence, I have no desire to be a gentoo developer. were this |
169 |
> > > > leadership to change and with some more improvement of my own |
170 |
> skills I |
171 |
> > > would |
172 |
> > > > consider it. I of course do not believe this decision is based on |
173 |
> me, and |
174 |
> > > am |
175 |
> > > > not attempting to inflate my own worth. but am merely pointing |
176 |
> out that I |
177 |
> > > may |
178 |
> > > > not be the only person who feels this way. |
179 |
> > > > -- |
180 |
> > > > Caleb Cushing |
181 |
> > > > |
182 |
> > > > PGP keys available on key server |
183 |
> > > > wwwkeys.us.pgp.net |
184 |
> > > > |
185 |
> > > > Due to low Internet availability I may not check |
186 |
> > > > my email more than once a week, and thus cannot |
187 |
> > > > guarantee a response time. |
188 |
> > > > |
189 |
> > > |
190 |
> > > |
191 |
> > > |
192 |
> > > -- |
193 |
> > > Ryan Gibbons |
194 |
> > > 817.657.1780 |
195 |
> > > gibbonsr@××××××××××××××××××.com |
196 |
> > > |
197 |
> > |
198 |
> > |
199 |
> > |
200 |
> > -- |
201 |
> > Sergey Kuleshov <svyatogor@×××××.com> |
202 |
> > Jabber: svyatogor@×××××.com |
203 |
> > ICQ: 158439855 |
204 |
> > -- |
205 |
> > gentoo-nfp@l.g.o mailing list |
206 |
> > |
207 |
> > |
208 |
> -- |
209 |
> gentoo-nfp@l.g.o mailing list |
210 |
> |
211 |
> |
212 |
> |
213 |
> -- |
214 |
> Ryan Gibbons |
215 |
> 817.657.1780 |
216 |
> gibbonsr@××××××××××××××××××.com |
217 |
-- |
218 |
gentoo-nfp@l.g.o mailing list |