1 |
On 1/16/08, James Laslavic <squarebottle@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
> A lot of people are talking about how "There shouldn't just be one |
3 |
> person!" Well, couple things. |
4 |
> |
5 |
> The biggest issue that these people have forgotten is that as it is |
6 |
> right now, there is only one trustee. All the others have retired or |
7 |
> been AWOL for a while now, and the same goes for the rest of the |
8 |
> foundation, pretty much. |
9 |
|
10 |
If you assume no one is working on stuff you are wrong and there are |
11 |
at least three folks actively working to figure out what our options |
12 |
are (and there is me, annoying the hell out of them to make sure we |
13 |
are making progress). |
14 |
|
15 |
> |
16 |
> And if being democratic is the big goal, then don't forget that the |
17 |
> community overwhelmingly supports his return. |
18 |
|
19 |
You have provided no metric. All I know is that a subset of folks |
20 |
want him back. |
21 |
(not that we are ignoring that subset, but that doesn't mean they |
22 |
represent everyone). |
23 |
|
24 |
> |
25 |
> If you want to create a system of checks and balances, then great! Bring |
26 |
> your ideas to the table when we have enough people showing up to pass |
27 |
> this kind of legislation! But right now, we've got to face the facts: |
28 |
> |
29 |
> 1) Things are not getting done. |
30 |
> 2) Gentoo is losing developers. |
31 |
> 3) Potential developers are choosing not to join. |
32 |
|
33 |
2 and 3 are both incorrect IMHO. We don't have enough recruiters to |
34 |
recruit all the folks that want to be devs; so that nixes 3. I don't |
35 |
have the numbers to refute 2 in front of me. |
36 |
|
37 |
> 4) The current Gentoo foundation has had several months to fix all the |
38 |
> above. |
39 |
|
40 |
Chris said he faxed paperwork to NM and that this was a surprise; |
41 |
certainly I'm not happy with the progress made here and there are |
42 |
folks who are working on it. |
43 |
|
44 |
> 5) Daniel Robbins offering to come back is not happening out of the blue |
45 |
> because "he feels like he wants power," but is happening in response to |
46 |
> the dire situation painted by the above issues. |
47 |
> |
48 |
> There are developers who want to see him return, and there are |
49 |
> developers that don't. This is normal. However, take a look at the |
50 |
> numbers. The people that stayed when he left will likely consist of |
51 |
> people that don't want to see him return because, after all, the reason |
52 |
> they didn't leave with him is because they weren't on his side then. As |
53 |
> such, it's not really very representative of anything, as any pollster |
54 |
> or statistician can tell you. When you look at the entire Gentoo |
55 |
> community though including all the developers that left back then and |
56 |
> all the developers that do not want to join the current Gentoo, it |
57 |
> overwhelmingly supports Daniel Robbins' return. |
58 |
|
59 |
Again, overwhelmingly is a strong term ;) |
60 |
|
61 |
> |
62 |
> I wish I could see some people be mature and say, "You know, I |
63 |
> personally don't think this is the best idea, but the community seems to |
64 |
> think it knows better, so I'm not going to try to block the whole |
65 |
> community." |
66 |
|
67 |
I don't think many devs actually outright want to say no. Most devs |
68 |
want more concrete terms (and they are working on getting them from |
69 |
Daniel). |
70 |
|
71 |
> |
72 |
> Also note that technically, Daniel Robbins already owns all the |
73 |
> trademarks and stuff again because when the charter was revoked, all |
74 |
> contracts and stuff (such as the transfer of rights) was legally |
75 |
> nullified. He's pretty much just being polite by asking. |
76 |
|
77 |
It's false because as far as I'm aware the Foundation never owned any |
78 |
trademarks and the copyrights for most code in it's present form is |
79 |
still owned by the author (which is not Daniel for the vast majority |
80 |
of code in the tree today). |
81 |
|
82 |
> |
83 |
> In any case, whatever you believe should happen, we can all agree that a |
84 |
> decision must be reached somehow. Debate is healthy, but we need a way |
85 |
> of officially deciding what will happen. Perhaps an organized election? |
86 |
> I mean, how do you want to do this? It's got to be done sometime (unless |
87 |
> you're trying to filibuster all this of course, which would just be lame). |
88 |
|
89 |
There was talk of a vote on -core. I think the current decision is |
90 |
that we need to investigate the alternatives before we can vote on |
91 |
them; hence we are getting our paperwork in order to get advice from |
92 |
our legal team. |
93 |
|
94 |
> |
95 |
> Sincerely, |
96 |
> Square Bottle |
97 |
> www.visualflavor.org |
98 |
> |
99 |
> |
100 |
> gibbonsr-ml@××××××××××××××××××.com wrote: |
101 |
> > Why does one person have to be the Dictator. We need a single governing |
102 |
> > body, but `body` doesn't have to mean one person |
103 |
> > |
104 |
> > Have the council do what they do, manage the devs, but have the council |
105 |
> > report the foudnation. Foundation members should be assigned areas and |
106 |
> > required to attend everything with area, basically a part of that |
107 |
> > board. So the council actually has one or two members in the |
108 |
> > foundation, the userrel actually has one or two members in the |
109 |
> > foundation. They report to the overall group what is going on in gentoo. |
110 |
> > |
111 |
> > If Daniel wants the join the foundation / trustee's, then great, let him |
112 |
> > do it from there with a team of people. |
113 |
> > |
114 |
> > |
115 |
> > ----- Original Message ----- |
116 |
> > From: "Senno During" <senno.during@×××××.com> |
117 |
> > To: gentoo-nfp@l.g.o |
118 |
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 4:44:33 PM (GMT-0600) America/Chicago |
119 |
> > Subject: Re: [gentoo-nfp] drobbins, leadership, etc. |
120 |
> > |
121 |
> > this is my feeling too. So far drobbins has given an option. i have |
122 |
> > heard good things about it, and bad things about it. Though, no |
123 |
> > alternative is known to me. i hope to hear about one soon! |
124 |
> > |
125 |
> > i also believe there will always be devs/users (are pretty important |
126 |
> > too i think!) that are not going to be happy with the choice that is |
127 |
> > going to be made. |
128 |
> > |
129 |
> > i do feel that Gentoo, currently, needs a sort of dictator, like Linux |
130 |
> > with Torvalds. Of course, you always hope for the right choice and right |
131 |
> > ideas from the leader then. But no decisions being made by a group, just to |
132 |
> > prevent a dictator style, doesn't sound right to me either. |
133 |
> > |
134 |
> > Senno During |
135 |
> > |
136 |
> > On Jan 16, 2008 11:09 PM, Sergey Kuleshov <svyatogor@×××××.com> wrote: |
137 |
> > > I'd second almost everything Caleb said. I do feel, that Daniel should |
138 |
> > > come back. And if he does I'll try to come back to the developers |
139 |
> > > (which I left some time ago). not that I think this will make any |
140 |
> > > difference, but just wanted to express my opinion as well. |
141 |
> > > |
142 |
> > > and when I hear peoples' concerns about handing him control of Gentoo, |
143 |
> > > I have only one question in return - any better options? cause what we |
144 |
> > > have now proved to be quite a failure. |
145 |
> > > |
146 |
> > > |
147 |
> > > On Jan 16, 2008 10:07 PM, <gibbonsr-ml@××××××××××××××××××.com> wrote: |
148 |
> > > > That WooHoo feeling seems to be held by most, Honestly at first i |
149 |
> > was there |
150 |
> > > > also. |
151 |
> > > > |
152 |
> > > > But now that I've calmed down, and started reading through |
153 |
> > everything I do |
154 |
> > > > not share the feeling. Do I think Daniel can help? Yes. Should we |
155 |
> > accept |
156 |
> > > > his current offer by Friday? No. Why? Many reasons, some having |
157 |
> > to do with |
158 |
> > > > the fact we just don't know enough. Another one is he is wanted |
159 |
> > > > unquestionable control ... which is dangerous to give to anybody, |
160 |
> > no matter |
161 |
> > > > how great the man once was. Would we give JFK or Lincoln complete |
162 |
> > control |
163 |
> > > > of the US, no checks, no balances .. no. (sorry to the non-us |
164 |
> > citizens for |
165 |
> > > > that example, best I could come up with in such sort notice). |
166 |
> > > > |
167 |
> > > > I know Daniel can help, but I also believe anybody who is committed |
168 |
> > enough |
169 |
> > > > can help. Somebody needs to take this personal, and take it as a |
170 |
> > part-time |
171 |
> > > > job and execute on actions, and be held accountable for what they |
172 |
> > did or |
173 |
> > > > didn't do. |
174 |
> > > > |
175 |
> > > > The past is the past, both good and bad. I think if Daniel would |
176 |
> > sit down |
177 |
> > > > with the Foundation, trustee, council and even allow others to join and |
178 |
> > > > listen (not speak, but listen) and then hash out a set of |
179 |
> > guidelines .. then |
180 |
> > > > great. But we shouldn't accept him blindly and unconditionally at this |
181 |
> > > > point in time. If Daniel doesn't want to sit down and talk this |
182 |
> > out, then |
183 |
> > > > he doesn't need to be back. |
184 |
> > > > |
185 |
> > > > |
186 |
> > > > |
187 |
> > > > ----- Original Message ----- |
188 |
> > > > From: "John Alberts" <john.m.alberts@×××××.com> |
189 |
> > > > To: "Caleb Cushing" <xenoterracide@×××××.com> |
190 |
> > > > Cc: gentoo-nfp@l.g.o |
191 |
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 3:54:00 PM (GMT-0600) America/Chicago |
192 |
> > > > Subject: Re: [gentoo-nfp] drobbins, leadership, etc. |
193 |
> > > > |
194 |
> > > > It might be prudent to back up your claims, conclusions, and |
195 |
> > suggestion with |
196 |
> > > > some type of fact. I'm not saying I disagree or agree with you, but |
197 |
> > > > basically, all you said was "WooHoo! Bring back Robbins!" |
198 |
> > > > |
199 |
> > > > John Alberts |
200 |
> > > > |
201 |
> > > > |
202 |
> > > > On Jan 16, 2008 3:43 PM, Caleb Cushing <xenoterracide@×××××.com> wrote: |
203 |
> > > > > just joining the conversation. I vote to bring drobbins back. |
204 |
> > Even though |
205 |
> > > > i as |
206 |
> > > > > a user/admin and potential future developer, have no vote. |
207 |
> > > > > |
208 |
> > > > > I would also like to note that under the current leadership, of |
209 |
> > which I |
210 |
> > > > have |
211 |
> > > > > no confidence, I have no desire to be a gentoo developer. were this |
212 |
> > > > > leadership to change and with some more improvement of my own |
213 |
> > skills I |
214 |
> > > > would |
215 |
> > > > > consider it. I of course do not believe this decision is based on |
216 |
> > me, and |
217 |
> > > > am |
218 |
> > > > > not attempting to inflate my own worth. but am merely pointing |
219 |
> > out that I |
220 |
> > > > may |
221 |
> > > > > not be the only person who feels this way. |
222 |
> > > > > -- |
223 |
> > > > > Caleb Cushing |
224 |
> > > > > |
225 |
> > > > > PGP keys available on key server |
226 |
> > > > > wwwkeys.us.pgp.net |
227 |
> > > > > |
228 |
> > > > > Due to low Internet availability I may not check |
229 |
> > > > > my email more than once a week, and thus cannot |
230 |
> > > > > guarantee a response time. |
231 |
> > > > > |
232 |
> > > > |
233 |
> > > > |
234 |
> > > > |
235 |
> > > > -- |
236 |
> > > > Ryan Gibbons |
237 |
> > > > 817.657.1780 |
238 |
> > > > gibbonsr@××××××××××××××××××.com |
239 |
> > > > |
240 |
> > > |
241 |
> > > |
242 |
> > > |
243 |
> > > -- |
244 |
> > > Sergey Kuleshov <svyatogor@×××××.com> |
245 |
> > > Jabber: svyatogor@×××××.com |
246 |
> > > ICQ: 158439855 |
247 |
> > > -- |
248 |
> > > gentoo-nfp@l.g.o mailing list |
249 |
> > > |
250 |
> > > |
251 |
> > -- |
252 |
> > gentoo-nfp@l.g.o mailing list |
253 |
> > |
254 |
> > |
255 |
> > |
256 |
> > -- |
257 |
> > Ryan Gibbons |
258 |
> > 817.657.1780 |
259 |
> > gibbonsr@××××××××××××××××××.com |
260 |
> -- |
261 |
> gentoo-nfp@l.g.o mailing list |
262 |
> |
263 |
> |
264 |
-- |
265 |
gentoo-nfp@l.g.o mailing list |