-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2008.01.31 19:12, Daniel Robbins wrote:
> I've seriously considered it (last night) and decided to decline. The
> reasons why start to get somewhat off-topic for this list so I've put
> them in my usual blog post.
> 
[snip]
> ... ultimately decided that to what I think is necessary
> would require fundamental changes to the way the Gentoo project is
> structured which would have been very disruptive and difficult to 
> make even as a trustee, and it's not clear that I would have the 
> ability to make these changes as a trustee even if I were elected due 
> to the current structure of the project that I would have been 
> required to work within.
> 
[snip]
> 
> -Daniel

Daniel,

I'm disappointed you feel that Gentoo needs a revolution rather than a 
slow steady planned and tested change from within. I became a Gentoo 
staffer shortly before the current setup was created and know very 
little about the 'old times', with you as Chief Architect in the pre 
council/foundation organisation.

The problem with revolutions is that there is no alpha testing and no 
going back. You can go from one thing that doesn't work to a different 
thing that doesn't work overnight. To cite various real world examples, 
look at 20th Century political revolutions.

Its much safer to work for incremental change from within, so it can be 
trialled and backed out if its found wanting. Gentoo users want change, 
they also want stability, a revolution is a very high risk strategy to 
deliver a suitable compromise.

I hope you have the opportunity to reconsider your decision not to 
stand as a trustee.

- -- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(NeddySeagoon) a member of
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
treecleaners

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHoj8LTE4/y7nJvasRAlUBAJ9nqT4zqykXyzue/J0y5zbFkjICtwCfT0tM
qw9Tc54NIkamu4ZCRvgYK2M=
=eQ1K
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-nfp@g.o mailing list