1 |
First - a quick comment regarding my choice of thread. I replied to |
2 |
this thread because I thought it was directly relevant to member classes |
3 |
as I thought this had a direct impact on the nature of the Foundation. |
4 |
What I didn't want to do is copy and past 50 snippets from other |
5 |
subthreads and reply to them. I didn't think that would add much, and |
6 |
my concerns with the nature of Foundation membership weren't related to |
7 |
some nuance of some detail but were a concern with the whole fundamental |
8 |
approach we're taking. |
9 |
|
10 |
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: |
11 |
> On Sun, 2008-05-25 at 02:03 +0200, Luca Barbato wrote: |
12 |
>>> So your thoughts there? Or what about at an event? |
13 |
>> Get someone sponsoring it. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> Ok, and who is going to poney up $100k for Gentoo? FYI I am a member of |
16 |
> the Florida Linux Show steering committee. Because of my efforts on our |
17 |
> last one, we topped 300 people at our first show. Scale did ~200 at |
18 |
> their first show. It's not easy getting people to sponsor events like |
19 |
> that. Much less a Gentoo specific event good luck. |
20 |
|
21 |
Look, let's be realistic. We're not Red Hat. We will probably never be |
22 |
Red Hat. I'm not entirely sure we want to be Red Hat. Having a booth |
23 |
at an event is a far cry from hosting one, and the politics in an |
24 |
organization that can field those kinds of resources would totally |
25 |
change the character of Gentoo. |
26 |
|
27 |
> |
28 |
>>> Ever been by a Gentoo booth compared to others? Like say FreeBSD? |
29 |
>> Say FFmpeg's one? |
30 |
> |
31 |
> Ok, so their are > 250 devs on FFmpeg? They have projects, and teams |
32 |
> like our infra? That's really comparing apples to oranges no? |
33 |
|
34 |
I think the point is that we'd like to preserve the small-organization |
35 |
atmosphere as much as possible. Yes, reality is going to dictate some |
36 |
compromises there, but I think most Gentoo devs would rather see a |
37 |
Gentoo that looks more like FFmpeg than the Red Cross. |
38 |
|
39 |
> |
40 |
>>> And those rsync servers and bandwidth cost $. |
41 |
>> Kindly provided by privates and organizations using Gentoo. |
42 |
> |
43 |
> Ok, so we aren't in need right now, but just for fun. Let's see how hard |
44 |
> it is to get another sponsor to give us ~$1k a month in services. Put a |
45 |
> call for help etc, in GMN, and let's see the response we get. |
46 |
> |
47 |
> Let's start talking reality, not ideals. |
48 |
|
49 |
Honestly, I think staying humble helps keep us honest. If we wanted to |
50 |
be self-sufficient at commercial infrastructure rates the cost could |
51 |
easily be $10k per month with no payroll - and that is using some of |
52 |
your own estimates from this email. Once you start having serious cash |
53 |
flow you get all the politics that go with it. |
54 |
|
55 |
I've seen it commented on other forums during some of the past problems |
56 |
that we can't afford to lose Gentoo - it offers something truly |
57 |
interesting and unique. If we lose a CVS server it will most likely |
58 |
have plenty of notice, and somebody will step up to meet the need, or we |
59 |
could always have a paypal support drive to tide us over in the meantime. |
60 |
|
61 |
> |
62 |
>>> But devs do not have to listen to users. |
63 |
>> Why should they? Ah, well, because we are reasonable people, open to |
64 |
>> feedback and treasuring the help others give us. |
65 |
> |
66 |
> Heck for that matter, at times fellow devs don't listen to others? Why |
67 |
> because we might have our own ideas as to how to do something but |
68 |
> differently. |
69 |
|
70 |
Look, I'm the first in line to say that we need to do more to encourage |
71 |
more end-user participation and developers need to start acting in a |
72 |
more professional way towards them. No, developers don't need to change |
73 |
their whole vision for a package because a user asks them to, but they |
74 |
can at least be polite in expressing their views. |
75 |
|
76 |
However, I don't think that non-dev Foundation membership is going to |
77 |
accomplish this. I think that it has real potential to put two groups |
78 |
with different constituencies at the helm of Gentoo and in serious |
79 |
conflict. Just look at the discussion here! |
80 |
|
81 |
> |
82 |
>> Again, nothing problematic here. |
83 |
> |
84 |
> Ok, so if you polled the community. We would get no suggests on |
85 |
> improvements. Gentoo has 0 problems right now. If I recall much of the |
86 |
> controversy from January that stared over foundation legal issues. Went |
87 |
> anywhere but. People were pointing out all kinds of issues with Gentoo. |
88 |
> |
89 |
> I guess since then, but some miracle, all that is resolved. Good to |
90 |
> know, guess I can happily resign as both a trustee, and users, and |
91 |
> things will be fine. Apps will be maintained, and I can go back to being |
92 |
> a user. I never wanted to be more. I had to, because of a lack of |
93 |
> others. |
94 |
> |
95 |
|
96 |
Relax - I'm the first to admit that Gentoo has problems. We need a |
97 |
strong user-rel team. However, it needs to be a liaison that can |
98 |
influence devs, not a board that simply rules over them. |
99 |
|
100 |
Gentoo does need to be more responsive to users. However, the way to |
101 |
accomplish that is to appeal to devs collective good natures - not to |
102 |
threaten to cut off their cvs access because it is running on Gentoo |
103 |
Foundation property. When a dev just is totally out of line, appeal to |
104 |
the broader dev community to police itself, which has been happing over |
105 |
the last year or so with far greater success than in the past (even if |
106 |
we do have some rough bumps like we've had in the most recent council |
107 |
meeting). |
108 |
|
109 |
> |
110 |
>>>> I think that Gentoo should be run by a group of volunteers who are |
111 |
>>>> accountable to the volunteers that contribute (whether staff or devs). |
112 |
>>> Ok, so I guess me being on the board. I am no longer a dev, or a user. |
113 |
>>> Nor am I am volunteer. I guess I am going to get paid at some point? |
114 |
>> No, you should not exist. |
115 |
> |
116 |
> Ok, good to know. I will just go away, and let things get back to where |
117 |
> they were. Things not getting done. |
118 |
|
119 |
Hey - I for one appreciate what you're doing with the Foundation. I |
120 |
think we do need the Foundation, but we need to be careful about its |
121 |
role. I think that Gentoo needs to have a single voice and direction, |
122 |
and having two very powerful boards with different constituencies is |
123 |
likely to cause trouble. |
124 |
|
125 |
> |
126 |
>> Again what the council received as proposal could be interpreted in a |
127 |
>> quite grim way. |
128 |
> |
129 |
> That's for the new council to decide. If one is ever elected. |
130 |
|
131 |
Uh, that isn't your call to make. In fact, you should probably be |
132 |
careful as a trustee to state an opinion here as anything other than |
133 |
your own personal opinion (granted, shared by others). I really don't |
134 |
like the trend I've seen lately where the Foundation is looking to hold |
135 |
the Council accountable for its actions. The folks who should be |
136 |
holding the Council accountable are the devs - collectively. I've |
137 |
stated my personal opinion on this matter, as have many others. Based |
138 |
on the recent -council mailing list postings I'm sure the council will |
139 |
find and enact some reasonable solution, which might include elections. |
140 |
|
141 |
And until elections are held, the current council is still the council. |
142 |
Granted, any council is free to change policies enacted by the former. |
143 |
The folks on the current council strike me as having good sense - |
144 |
they're not flying off the handle issuing proclamations when it is wiser |
145 |
to see what the consensus is and move in that direction. |
146 |
|
147 |
> |
148 |
>>> Sure because they are there. If we lost one, and you could not commit |
149 |
>>> code, or go to g.o, or etc. Then I think you and many others would care. |
150 |
>>> Allot, and very quickly. |
151 |
>> Then we'll find solutions. |
152 |
> |
153 |
> And what do you think I am working on now? Waiting till it happens again |
154 |
> to find solutions then? That's really proactive to a possible |
155 |
> catastrophe. |
156 |
|
157 |
Ok, so let's set up mirrors for some of the more critical services with |
158 |
different sponsors. I think that is a better solution than having $100k |
159 |
in the bank. |
160 |
|
161 |
>> Not really, you plan to get more people inside the foundation that can |
162 |
>> have some kind of power over the developers, |
163 |
> |
164 |
> Give me a break. Not one of any of my posting has had anything to do |
165 |
> with power. Just organization. |
166 |
|
167 |
Uh, the Foundation legally has quite a bit of power already. Legally it |
168 |
owns any Gentoo-owned assets. Right now that is a bit limited by the |
169 |
fact that most of our gear is owned by sponsors. If we actually do |
170 |
build out our infrastructure in the way you suggest then the Foundation |
171 |
will have a great deal of power. |
172 |
|
173 |
Much of your argument has been around what happens if some random |
174 |
sponsor pulls the plug. Right now that means we have to scramble to get |
175 |
some portion of gentoo running elsewhere. Now, the counterargument is |
176 |
what happens if there is some major rift and the Foundation decides to |
177 |
force some distasteful change? Now every asset of any kind needed by |
178 |
Gentoo - including the name - is gone and basically the devs need to go |
179 |
elsewhere and start over. |
180 |
|
181 |
I think that the Foundation is best kept as a simple organization that |
182 |
meets a legal requirement and which is accountable to the same devs as |
183 |
the council. In an ideal world I'd actually prefer that the Council and |
184 |
Foundation be the same body, but I don't think this is practical as it |
185 |
would require the Council to meet many legal standards in its various |
186 |
actions that are likely to cause delays in decision-making, and finding |
187 |
good volunteers to fill both roles might be difficult. |
188 |
|
189 |
> |
190 |
>> People can have different opinion and wants to check if they are right |
191 |
>> the experimental way. Nothing wrong with it. |
192 |
> |
193 |
> Yes but just like package maintanance. There are those that will cast |
194 |
> their opinions. Then there are those that will actually do the work, day |
195 |
> in and day out. |
196 |
> |
197 |
> I love all these opinions, given the lack of interest for running or |
198 |
> wanting to be on the board. I wish more that had opinions, were willing |
199 |
> to put their effort where their words and thoughts are. |
200 |
> |
201 |
> I have. |
202 |
> |
203 |
|
204 |
Isn't this last bit the whole point of this discussion? It is really |
205 |
easy for me as somebody who doesn't do much on the Foundation to nitpick |
206 |
things you are doing. You resent this, because my opinions aren't |
207 |
backed up by willingness to back up words with help. And yet, your |
208 |
proposal is to have Gentoo controlled primarily by users who are in this |
209 |
exact situation. Do you think that developers are going to appreciate |
210 |
having to deal with a foundation that is happy to make demands and throw |
211 |
money at problems, but not to actually do the work? Most of us have day |
212 |
jobs involving this kind of attitude - I suspect that many contribute to |
213 |
Gentoo precisely because it DOESN'T work this way. |
214 |
|
215 |
I really do want to do whatever I can to help make the Foundation run |
216 |
smoothly and not be a burden to those running it. That is why I |
217 |
advocate having the Foundation keep to the very basics. It should hold |
218 |
trademark and tangible assets since we need some legal body to do this. |
219 |
If all it does is hold an election and annual meeting and file |
220 |
paperwork once a year I think it will have accomplished much of its |
221 |
purpose. If the Foundation can do more that is great, but it shouldn't |
222 |
become the rudder for the distro. |
223 |
|
224 |
The Foundation must remain accountable to developers. Anything else is |
225 |
reasonably likely to lead to a long-term schism. Yes, I am sympathetic |
226 |
to the fact that not many devs want to step up and help with the |
227 |
Foundation. However, that can't be allowed to give the Foundation the |
228 |
power to set off in a different direction contrary to the will of most |
229 |
developers (which granted, hasn't really been measured). The solution |
230 |
to many of Gentoo's problems is to get devs to listen more to the needs |
231 |
of their users - because it is the right thing to do. Twisting arms is |
232 |
more likely to cause resentment than solve problems - as least in most |
233 |
cases. |
234 |
-- |
235 |
gentoo-nfp@l.g.o mailing list |