1 |
On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 10:24 -0800, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
2 |
> OK, I'm starting a new thread here to try to discuss some things the |
3 |
> trustees can do to improve both visibility and also attempt to |
4 |
> ensure/promote progress within the Foundation. Please chime in with |
5 |
> your own ideas. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> - Regular meetings - The trustees should have a regular monthly meeting |
8 |
> to discuss progress, preferably the first week of the month (for GMN). |
9 |
> |
10 |
> - Regular GMN section - I think that both the Council and the trustees |
11 |
> should have a section each for summaries of their latest meetings. This |
12 |
> should relay information about what is happening to the developer pool |
13 |
> and the community, in general. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> - Named positions - I also think that specifically putting certain |
16 |
> people into certain positions would possibly improve getting things |
17 |
> done. For each position, there should be an alternate, so that we don't |
18 |
> end up relying on a single person. This also breaks up the |
19 |
> responsibilities a bit so that the trustees and the community know what |
20 |
> responsibilities that each person should be working. Positions that I |
21 |
> see that could/should be filled: President, Secretary, Treasurer |
22 |
> |
23 |
> Those are my initial ideas. Comments? |
24 |
> |
25 |
|
26 |
I am not a developer, just user, but I hope I can dare to express my |
27 |
opinion - I read these nice ideas about improving communication |
28 |
between developers and users and I think it's also up to us - users... |
29 |
so I am trying. |
30 |
|
31 |
I have grown up in a centrally planned economy and it was all about |
32 |
regular meetings, summaries and named positions - those were used as |
33 |
tools to improve things and they almost never worked as expected. |
34 |
|
35 |
For example these regular meetings you propose - if there is an issue |
36 |
to talk about why wait until the regular meeting is held? Are there no |
37 |
efficient and easy to use channels to communicate immediately? If |
38 |
there is no issue to talk about - regular meeting would be just a |
39 |
waste of time. |
40 |
|
41 |
These institutional things make everything less efficient - and BTW - |
42 |
they tend to get sooo boring and meaningless... The more non-formal, |
43 |
immediate and 'not institutionalized' communication - the better. |
44 |
|
45 |
In (obviously not just) my opinion the problem is that Gentoo has |
46 |
become too political, too rigid, too bureaucratic and institutional - |
47 |
and it seems to me that maybe you don't realize (maybe you have not |
48 |
attended as many regular meetings as I have;-)) that you want to fix |
49 |
things by making Gentoo even more bureaucratic, more institutional, |
50 |
less flexible. |
51 |
|
52 |
I think the solution is to go the exact opposite way - to make |
53 |
structural changes and use technical tools (as Daniel Robbins wrote |
54 |
about it) that would allow Gentoo to become more decentralized, |
55 |
flexible, less formal, less political. Disassembling the cathedral a |
56 |
little. |
57 |
|
58 |
Competition of smaller projects led by developers who talk when they |
59 |
need to instead of cathedral led by official institutions going |
60 |
through official (and less and less efficient) ways. Smaller teams who |
61 |
communicate on daily basis so they don't need summaries and reports. |
62 |
|
63 |
Allowing and promoting funny competition between smaller teams instead |
64 |
of demotivating (because unsolvable) fights inside huge teams frozen |
65 |
in official ways of doing things. I have seen many developers leaving |
66 |
Gentoo because of fights - is it necessary? There should be some way |
67 |
to use the conflict for Gentoo's sake and developers' fun instead of |
68 |
never-ending discussions with only one solution - less patient side of |
69 |
a dispute leaves Gentoo. |
70 |
|
71 |
Discussions are good but sometimes when there is too much of a need to |
72 |
discuss things this tells us that there is something wrong and there |
73 |
is a need for structural change. I think Gentoo needs mechanism for |
74 |
teams to split up much more easily - I mean... lets let the work do |
75 |
the talking - if there is a disagreement in a team they should be able |
76 |
to split up easily and compete - the better technical solution wins |
77 |
and gets to the official tree - that's IMO more efficient and more fun |
78 |
way than discussions. I have some kind of micro-forks inside Gentoo on |
79 |
mind - I think that is what Gentoo should support as much as possible |
80 |
and Gentoo's infrastructure should be tailored to support it. |
81 |
|
82 |
To find the mechanism that would allow to maintain functionality of |
83 |
Gentoo as whole, solve compatibility issues etc. without too much of a |
84 |
huge organization that needs more and more energy to keep itself |
85 |
going... writing summaries and attending meetings while there is less |
86 |
and less time left to do the actual work - that is the problem. |
87 |
|
88 |
Thanx for your time reading this. |
89 |
|
90 |
Jan Bilek. |
91 |
-- |
92 |
gentoo-nfp@l.g.o mailing list |