Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship

Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-nfp
Lists: gentoo-nfp: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
To: <gentoo-nfp@g.o>
From: "Daniel Robbins" <drobbins@g.o>
Subject: RE: [Fwd: Summary of NFP options]
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 13:17:29 -0600
> The coop is a brand new idea.  Nobody has really done 
> anything like it before, so it's likely to take a great deal 
> of thought and effort to get set up correctly.  I'd hate to 
> see the Gentoo NFP efforts get delayed as a result.  

I agree. I think I have been trying to solve too many problems at once
rather than approach this one step at a time. I am a perfectionist. It's
also human nature to try to make "version 2" of something incredibly complex
and sophisticated so as to solve all problems with "version 1". This
tendency is called "the second system effect." And it looks like I've fallen
victim to the second system effect in planning the next entity for Gentoo.
Because of my desire to not let anyone down, I've become paralyzed and am
letting everyone down. That's not my intention. We can address the funding
issues later and get the NFP set up this month.

> > My personal $.02:
> I'd like to see a closed, non-co-optable model.  Both models 
> have their weaknesses, but I think the open one is more 
> susceptible to groupthink, not to mention coersion.  I think 
> a closed model, combined with an active, vocal community 
> (which Gentoo certainly has) allows for a solid feedback loop 
> without running the risks of coersion.

It would be incredibly helpful to me to get a consensus on the type of model
(either closed and non-co-optable or open and potentially co-optable) that
people would prefer for the NFP. I, like Kurt, lean towards the closed model
but I also realize that I will likely be part of this "closed" group so my
viewpoint may be skewed. I have also had some concerns about the conduct and
effectiveness of the management team, but I think that those issues can
probably be addressed by having better-defined standards and policies (such
as the draft "IMPORTANT: devrel procedure (long)" email I posted to -core
earlier today.

I have been trying to figure out a perfect organizational model for the NFP
that will meet everyone's expectations and wants. This is probably a fool's
errand -- some decisions need to be made that by their nature exclude other

The key decision to make is whether the NFP is membership-based (and open to
take-over) or non-membership (and thus by its nature non-democratic.) It
seems like most are OK with an NFP that
Is not open to take-over and is held accountable by the fact that developers
and users can vote with their feet.

I am scheduling an appointment with my lawyer early next week. If I can get
a consensus from list members about the organizational model of the NFP, I
can get him started on the paperwork.



gentoo-nfp@g.o mailing list

RE: [Fwd: Summary of NFP options]
-- Chris Gianelloni
Re: [Fwd: Summary of NFP options]
-- Corey Shields
Re: [Fwd: Summary of NFP options]
-- Lance Albertson
Re: [Fwd: Summary of NFP options]
-- Kurt Lieber
Lists: gentoo-nfp: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: [Fwd: Summary of NFP options]
Next by thread:
Re: [Fwd: Summary of NFP options]
Previous by date:
Re: [Fwd: Re: Summary of NFP options]
Next by date:
Re: FW: [Fwd: Summary of NFP options]

Updated Jun 17, 2009

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-nfp mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.