1 |
There are enough misunderstandings/uninformed statements being made here |
2 |
for me to want to weigh in with my own clarifications. Most of this has |
3 |
been said already, mixed in with other threads, but I feel some points |
4 |
deserve specific visibility. |
5 |
|
6 |
I'll briefly put my 2 points at the top here for those who don't want to |
7 |
read this whole email. If this comes as a surprise, shock, or you just |
8 |
want to see the full justifications for whatever reason then you might |
9 |
want to read the whole thing. |
10 |
|
11 |
1. Daniel Robbins' offer to return to the foundation is much more than |
12 |
that. Not only does he want to return to the highest position there is, |
13 |
he proposes that we redefine the foundation to do several things it was |
14 |
explicitly designed (by himself) NOT to do, and hence restructuring much |
15 |
of the developer community metastructure too. |
16 |
|
17 |
2. In my (informed) opinion, Daniel being in a position of power within |
18 |
Gentoo was a BAD thing for a long period of time towards the end of his |
19 |
stay. Daniel's actions (or lack of them) were harming the distribution |
20 |
and the community as a whole. Daniel's personal company (which no other |
21 |
developers had any real involvement in) built around the distribution |
22 |
was failing, harming the distribution, and nobody could really do |
23 |
anything about it. |
24 |
(this is based on PERSONAL RECOLLECTION of the time when Daniel was |
25 |
leading Gentoo. I don't think many of the developers here today were |
26 |
actually developers when this was the case - but I was, so I believe I |
27 |
have half a leg to stand on). |
28 |
|
29 |
And now for the personal justifications: (corrections welcome, assuming |
30 |
you actually were around to know what happened) |
31 |
|
32 |
-------------------------------------------- |
33 |
|
34 |
The Gentoo Foundation was formed by Daniel Robbins himself. I |
35 |
guess some people knew this and some didn't. It was formed when Daniel |
36 |
wanted to leave Gentoo (more on this below), but as he had certain legal |
37 |
rights like a trademark (?), copyright assignment from most developers, |
38 |
etc, the legal entities needed a new home (he couldn't just leave |
39 |
without causing us a lot of problems). Also, he had previously been |
40 |
running Gentoo through a homegrown for-profit company, I think as a sole |
41 |
trader (rather than a ltd company), called "Gentoo Technologies, Inc.". |
42 |
|
43 |
Daniel formed the foundation solely for the legal stuff (in |
44 |
order that Gentoo Technologies could dissolve) and he explicitly |
45 |
restricted its purpose to that alone. No influence on project direction |
46 |
or development. |
47 |
|
48 |
This has always been a bit of a misconception outside of the development |
49 |
community - various people have attributed prior foundation issues or |
50 |
election results to have a big influence on Gentoo development. Or |
51 |
blaming conceived problems with Gentoo communities on the foundation |
52 |
trustees not doing their jobs, etc. There was even concern at one point |
53 |
that developers (foundation members) were voting for foundation trustees |
54 |
based on their technical ability. |
55 |
|
56 |
Daniel's offer to take over the Gentoo Foundation is not simply an offer |
57 |
to pick things up where they are. There are big changes involved here. |
58 |
Note that he lists 5 changes at |
59 |
http://blog.funtoo.org/2008/01/here-my-offer.html and all of them except |
60 |
number 4 are rather significant. |
61 |
|
62 |
Chris G said this rather nicely in another post too. Chris suggests that |
63 |
his proposal involves disbanding the Gentoo Council (the true managerial |
64 |
backbone of the distribution). While there may be options other than |
65 |
tearing down the Council, you can get a feel for just how major these |
66 |
proposed changes are. |
67 |
|
68 |
Further confusion is encouraged by Daniel's more recent posts: |
69 |
|
70 |
> Also, if what Grant said is correct - [...] |
71 |
> then it will be very hard to fix the user/developer |
72 |
> disconnect in the Gentoo community via the Foundation as it currently |
73 |
> exists. |
74 |
|
75 |
Why will it be very hard to fix that problem via the Foundation? Because |
76 |
the foundation as it was designed and as it currently stands was given a |
77 |
completely different set of roles! |
78 |
|
79 |
In order to fix that problem, a much more sensible approach would be to |
80 |
go through the 2 Gentoo projects with the explicit role of addressing |
81 |
such issues. Those would be User Relations and Public Relations. |
82 |
I'm not sure what draws Daniel to think those issues would be better |
83 |
handled by the Foundation, and if he's really keen on solving the issues |
84 |
why he hasn't publicly demonstrated any interest in communicating with |
85 |
the people within those projects, but would be interested to hear more. |
86 |
|
87 |
So, it's not just a case of considering Daniel as a foundation |
88 |
candidate, it's a case of considering of a large rework of the community |
89 |
structure. Maybe that's a good thing, but it does need a lot of |
90 |
thought/details/planning, and it's unrealistic to expect a quick |
91 |
response here. (if I were making such proposals, I personally would work |
92 |
incrementally: join the foundation first, THEN become it's leader, THEN |
93 |
redefine everything) |
94 |
|
95 |
To summarise my point: Daniel created the foundation to specifically |
96 |
be isolated from everything except legal aspects, and this is exactly |
97 |
what has happened since its inception. Not only does his offer include |
98 |
taking over the foundation, it involves largely redefining the |
99 |
foundation *and* much of the rest of the metastructure. |
100 |
|
101 |
------------------- |
102 |
|
103 |
Now for the second thing bugging me: certain people's unquestioned trust |
104 |
in Daniel Robbins. Is it a "he founded the distribution so he must be a |
105 |
great candidate" type thing? I guess that is a reasonable assumption to |
106 |
make. It's also a nice thought of the founder returning and all. |
107 |
|
108 |
But that said, how many users actually have good knowledge and |
109 |
experience of the state of affairs when Daniel was in power, |
110 |
particularly at the time when he was working his way out the door? I |
111 |
suspect very few do. When I was a user, I had no inkling of any problems |
112 |
or directions with Gentoo management. When I was a |
113 |
developer-in-training, I had only a little knowledge that Daniel was |
114 |
causing problems and fortunately was creating an exit path for himself. |
115 |
The first day I became a developer and had access to the private |
116 |
resources, BOOM!, the sorry state of the distribution immediately |
117 |
slammed right into my face, much of which I was previously completely |
118 |
unaware of. |
119 |
|
120 |
How many present-day Gentoo developers have knowledge + experience of |
121 |
the state of affairs when Daniel was in power? Probably more than I can |
122 |
count on my fingers, thumbs, and toes, but not significantly more. |
123 |
Daniel's departure happened years ago, and as is typical in open source |
124 |
communities, people's interests change so developers come and go quite |
125 |
rapidly - we're left with a relatively small number of present-day |
126 |
developers who actually had developer status when Daniel was in charge. |
127 |
|
128 |
Admittedly I was late onto the scene, and was only a developer for a |
129 |
fairly short time period while Daniel was around, but the events that |
130 |
happened during that time were enough to see that problems had been |
131 |
going on for a while. |
132 |
|
133 |
If any other developers from that "era" would like to weigh in and |
134 |
clarify/correct/disagree with any of the below, feel free - I know that |
135 |
there are others around who have more of a picture than I do. |
136 |
|
137 |
At this time, there were some hefty conflicts going on, many people were |
138 |
upset that they had so little influence on the direction of Gentoo, not |
139 |
entirely following what Daniel Robbins should propose their projects |
140 |
should do, etc. Things had reached the point where the whole project was |
141 |
being affected by the mess (in contrast to here where the Foundation |
142 |
'problems' are *only* affecting legal stuff). |
143 |
|
144 |
It was widely agreed that having just a single person leading the |
145 |
distribution was a big bottleneck and was hindering the progression of |
146 |
the distro. Not only that, Daniel seemed to be a bad fit for that kind |
147 |
of managerial role anyway. |
148 |
|
149 |
A common complaint was that Daniel kept starting projects and making |
150 |
movements and then not following through. I witnessed this first hand |
151 |
where after admitting a huge backlog of issues that only he could work |
152 |
on, he went on to propose that Gentoo Technologies spin off another |
153 |
company, a co-operative to provide services around Gentoo or something |
154 |
like that. |
155 |
|
156 |
The impression people had is that Daniel is a developer (technical type |
157 |
person), but Gentoo had grown to the point where as the top of the |
158 |
chain, he had to spend all of his time on the non-technical day-to-day |
159 |
stuff which was not his thing, and things suffered as a result. |
160 |
|
161 |
I know this sounds a bit negative against Daniel, and I'm not saying |
162 |
that I could do any better either, but I'm with the idea that Daniel is |
163 |
a talented software developer and has proven himself to be good at |
164 |
thinking up ideals for the basis of an entire OS, but he is (or at |
165 |
least, was) not good enough on the managerial side of things. I should |
166 |
also mention that some of his managerial-style work was assisted by a |
167 |
personal attorney of his. |
168 |
|
169 |
Let's not also forget that after Gentoo had "tensed up" so much that |
170 |
even he realised the best thing he could do is leave, he disbanded |
171 |
Gentoo Technologies declaring $10,000 of personal debt. The company failed. |
172 |
|
173 |
Summary #2: based on my recollection of the events that happened while I |
174 |
was a developer and Daniel was in charge, I personally feel Daniel was a |
175 |
bad fit for the "distribution leader" position and that his skills in |
176 |
the non-technical domains were lacking. |
177 |
|
178 |
And my personal opinion: I do not know him very well, but despite the |
179 |
above I still respect him very much as a developer and as a founder. I |
180 |
do not support the idea of him returning in a position of power, but I |
181 |
do acknowledge that in the past few years he may have become a better |
182 |
manager type person; I will happily give him my vote for a trustee |
183 |
position for another chance, and welcome him back to the developer |
184 |
community. |
185 |
|
186 |
Daniel |
187 |
-- |
188 |
gentoo-nfp@l.g.o mailing list |