On Tue, 2004-04-13 at 15:17, Daniel Robbins wrote:
> 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.

We definitely should not hold up the NFP any longer.  Especially when
both goals can be met in the long run.

> 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 also would prefer the closed model.  For one, it seems to be a bit
more familiar to people, and also it blocks outside attempts at
takeover.  I speak from a "little chance of being in the group"
perspective, and I'm quite happy with that.  I like to spend my free
time working on Gentoo, not reading up on so-and-so's accomplishments
this week so I can vote once again on the new yahoo manager of the
week.  A Linux distribution such as Gentoo has quite a bit of feedback
intrinsic in its design.

> 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 agree completely.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Games Team

Is your power animal a penguin?