Gentoo Archives: gentoo-nfp

From: Jan Bilek <clonolu@×××××.com>
To: Alec Warner <antarus@g.o>
Cc: Christian Faulhammer <opfer@g.o>, gentoo-nfp@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-nfp] Re: How to improve the trustees
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 15:32:15
Message-Id: ce281f210802040732t42b2c232r8bf3eba9c4ce17e1@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-nfp] Re: How to improve the trustees by Alec Warner
1 On Feb 4, 2008 7:50 AM, Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> wrote:
2 > On 2/3/08, Jan Bilek <clonolu@×××××.com> wrote:
3 >
4 >
5 > > - Gentoo used to be 'bleeding edge' - it's not anymore.
6 >
7 > I'm really digging for specifics here. 'bleeding edge' is very
8 > unspecific. It is my experience that major updates are available
9 > hours or days after release. Are you dissatisfied that this is not
10 > true for some packages, or dissatisfied that the packages are marked
11 > for testing and masked instead of being stable or ~arch?
12
13 A couple of years ago when a new version of any application appeared
14 some Gentoo users popped out in some discussion immediately laughing
15 "haha, we've got it in our official tree, we are the first ones..." -
16 Gentoo used to be famous for that;-)
17
18 When I started with Gentoo my /etc/portage/package.use used to be
19 empty. Now I have a lot of ~x86s (and I have never had any trouble
20 with them - do all of them need to be ~ed?). Obviously I am not the
21 only one - unfortunately the discussions I have read about it are not
22 in English but I can tell you I seem to have observed some kind of a
23 trend: users leaving Gentoo and choosing Arch - some of them
24 explicitly stated that it was because of too many ~archs they needed:
25 (Czech)http://www.abclinuxu.cz/blog/atom/2005/6/proc-jsem-presel-z-gentoo-na-arch
26 - Why I left Gentoo and chose Arch. For those who understand Czech and
27 are interested in fiery discussions - see also:
28 http://www.abclinuxu.cz/blog/idea/2008/1/gentoo-nam-umira-mozna-jenom-trochu-hnije.-co-ted
29 http://www.abclinuxu.cz/blog/jkt/2008/1/re-gentoo-nam-umira-mozna-jenom-trochu-hnije.-co-ted
30 http://www.abclinuxu.cz/blog/idea/2008/1/hleda-se-nahrada-za-gentoo-second-round
31 - you can see many users claiming they left Gentoo and have chosen
32 Arch. I am not saying it means anything about Gentoo - but I think
33 it's good to know about it.
34
35 I am not saying it's necessarily bad thing to be a bit slower than the
36 most bleeding-edge distros. Maybe it's because Gentoo has better QA
37 than for example Arch. Maybe this is just one of these things that
38 need to be explained to users - a communication issue again. But some
39 people claim it is because of a lack of manpower in Gentoo - in that
40 case we might want to re-think recruitment process.
41
42
43 > Arrogant? I'd imagine some are; I personally try not to be and I'm
44 > sure I fail at it quite often.
45 >
46 > I don't think Gentoo is a club for elitests
47
48 I don't think that either. I just wanted to say that I had observed
49 many users who think so and many of them claim to have left Gentoo
50 because of that - which means there is something wrong with
51 communication again. Why are Gentoo developers perceived as arrogant?
52 Does the arrogant minority get more attention than decent majority?
53 Why?
54 I think Gentoo needs better tools to manage it's PR.
55
56
57 > I certainly develop for myself and not for users. Now this is a fine
58 > line to walk. Developing for yourself means you work at your own
59 > pace; it doesn't give you the right to be mean to folks or to
60 > contribute negatively. It means you don't really get deadlines and
61 > you get to choose what to work on regardless of others input.
62 >
63 > I would counter-argue that a *subset* of users have unrealistic
64 > expectations such as having ebuilds in the tree hours after release,
65 > or fixing a bug just because it was filed, or asking for crazy code
66 > changes to the package manager to fix their corner case that is not
67 > sane. The point is that most developers are pretty nice and will
68 > probably help you if you ask in a courteous manner and most users are
69 > nice to talk to and help.
70
71 I agree - absolutely.
72
73
74 > We don't have enough cohesion right now to present a unified front.
75 > PR is composed of only so many folks and those folks in turn are
76 > driven by events from developers and users in a bottom up fashion; aka
77 > they don't report news unless they are told or they know about it. We
78 > have about 100+ mailing lists for projects and no one can monitor them
79 > all. This was supposed to be how the GWN operated; news would
80 > percolate to the GWN folks who would create a weekly newsletter;
81 > however submissions stopped coming in which is why the news stopped.
82 > I think many users enjoyed the content in the GWN and I think we could
83 > possibly try something like that again. How do we notify users that
84 > the news is basically driven by their input? We have no reporters;
85 > which means we need people to act as them for us.
86
87 Yes - reporters - I like that idea. Active PR. Now Gentoo has mainly
88 passive PR which means that it gets attention only when problems and
89 conflicts occur - bad publicity.
90
91 IMO Gentoo needs a better conflict-management tool to manage internal
92 relations (a better and more powerful mechanism how to watch and
93 possibly get rid of troublemakers before many developers and users are
94 lost because of their behavior, and maybe some other way how to solve
95 the conflict without at least one side of a dispute leaving Gentoo...)
96 and proactive positive PR.
97
98 Thanx, Jan.
99 --
100 gentoo-nfp@l.g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-nfp] Re: How to improve the trustees Douglas James Dunn <djdunn.safety@×××××.com>
Re: [gentoo-nfp] Re: How to improve the trustees Marius Mauch <genone@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-nfp] Re: How to improve the trustees Denis Dupeyron <calchan@g.o>