Re: [gentoo-nfp] drobbins, leadership, etc.

[Ramon van Alteren]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi All,

Caleb Cushing wrote:
| just joining the conversation. I vote to bring drobbins back. Even
though i as
| a user/admin and potential future developer, have no vote.

I just joined the mailing-list and apparently the conversation :-)
I also know I have no vote, being a user/sysadmin and potential
developer. I do have a large vested interest in Gentoo Linux, I/we use
Gentoo Linux to run a serverpark of 1300 servers. The outcome of this
discussion interests me and will/may have impact on future technology
choices for the park.

Within our company I am the technology lead and teamleader for the
system engineering team which is responsible for the system
administration of the above serverpark.

I look at Daniels proposal with mixed feelings.

1. I can understand a request for control in the current situation. I
wouldn't want to put a lot of effort into it without some assurances
that it would be possible to actually solve the problems at hand.

2. I think the proposal is too widely scoped, it encompasses everything
to do with community and developer relations for gentoo. It would be
easier if the scope was reduced to foundation and maybe
leadership/council/influence matters. As it stands now there's even the
possibility of 	"changing a few key things here and there"

3. I dislike the fire or run approach, the "If you do not respond to me
before tuesday I will pack my bags and never return" attitude is not
doing the proposal any good and doesn't strike me as someone who is
committed to get Gentoo Linux going as a community of users and
developers with wildly diverse interests. It contrasts badly with the
overall content of the blogposts on the proposal so far.
OTOH todays blog seems to indicate that Daniel is willing to run the
idea a bit longer.

4. With regard to the blog post with the original proposal:

point 2 scares me:
<quote>
The Foundation will be responsible for providing general guidance and
direction for the project and for ensuring that the Gentoo project is
moving in a positive direction and has proper leadership.
</quote>

It has the smell of "I know what's good for you" around it, which I find
questionable at least and especially considering the diverse community
that Gentoo is or has become.

point 3 sounds like a good thing (TM) to arrange beforehand and to apply
to the proposal itself.

<quote>
The Foundation will be responsible for ensuring that Gentoo developers,
individual Gentoo users, external Gentoo-related projects and
Gentoo-using organizations have a voice and the opportunity to influence
the overall technical direction of the Gentoo project in a clear, open
and organized way.
</quote>

However I have no wisdom to offer on what or how that should be
arranged, apparently Daniel has, at least he appears to have some sort
of idea worked out judging from his proposal. Maybe that can be applied
to the package of changes he wishes to enact on foundation and community
matters ? Please note package, going through some process for each and
every change does not sound like a good idea to me and a waste of time
for everyone involved except maybe the trolls.

Points 1, 4 and 5 of the proposal sound good to me.

FWIW, I would very very very much like to see the current situation
resolved and benevolent dictatorship isn't such a bad idea. If it works
for Linus why not for Daniel. However Linus _seems_ to rule mostly on
technical matters and leave the politics to "stew" until a solution
presents itself

I would very much prefer to steer clear from the "democracy for
everything" that seems to rule debian.

I've read today blogpost on funtoo thrice now and I think I basically
agree with the analysis but that it leaves out the reason which I've
heard quote to me over and over again on why developer status within
gentoo had a high barrier: the live portage tree.

I think really cool work has been done to alleviate the original
cathedral requirement for gentoo-developer membership has been done by
several people in the community: layman, gentoo projects, overlay
support, PMS, pkg-core, paludis etc. Maybe it's time the
political/community situation is changed to reflect the current changed
technical situation ?

Besides the legal situation, which falls well outside my compentence, I
didn't have the idea that gentoo was really on the verge of dying and
just limping along. Issues, hell yeah, but dying and in need of
resurrection... naaah not by a long shot.

Grtz Ramon

P.S> I can be found on IRC, European(Amsterdam) Time, nick:Innocenti
I'd welcome chats on the subject, provided I'm not swamped in work or
real life or both :)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHjpovwiVM6CtDHQ0RAn4FAJwMrdi9CgzNAobZ/NNobJI4+/cAOACfdMWW
WrNmDxPd6xJZ6ME0ra2SFhw=
=cBIk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-nfp@l.g.o mailing list