On Thu, 2011-03-24 at 01:04 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 12:52 AM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> > However that was really a band aid, temporary solution. The Foundation
> > really needs to have officers, and a much larger board, like the
> > articles state. With officers doing the work, and board members
> > providing oversight, direction, review, etc. The Foundation members
> > elect a board, and the board choses officers. Though could let members
> > vote for officers just the same.
> i think all it really comes down to is that people simply arent
> interested. they're happy/content with focusing on the technical.
> all the rest is viewed as a chore simply required for legal reasons.
> we dont have people driving a "vision" or "goal" for Gentoo because it
> simply isnt fun.
Thats very short sighted because lots of hardware vendors have toys that
would be fun to play with. However typically only RH and others get to
play with those toys due to having relationships with vendors that
Gentoo does not have.
That said Gentoo is all over GSoC, and Gentoo could be funding its own
development just the same. Or doing things like Debian with Debconf.
There is much more fun to be had, and way less drama with a proper
structure. Not to mention Gentoo can start to live up to its potential.
> so you can outline all different types of structures, but in the end
> if the general developer community doesnt care, we'll simply end up
> right where we started.
Which is why I never wasted time drafting up such controversial
proposals, that no one would care about other than to flame. Its pretty
clear that no one has really cared since Daniel left and thats rather
sad. Hopefully that will change, but despite me being an optimist, I am
rather pessimistic it will change.
William L. Thomson Jr.