Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-project] Re: A proposal to get out of this mess
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 18:51:42
Message-Id: fmtgr7$eu5$1@ger.gmane.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] A proposal to get out of this mess by Dominik Riva
1 Dominik Riva wrote:
2
3 > On Jan 15, 2008 2:15 PM, Wulf C. Krueger <philantrop@g.o> wrote:
4 >
5 >> Please explain why I should care about the Gentoo Foundation in your
6 >> opinion.
7 >
8 > Maybe because it is a the part of Gentoo was designed to holds Gentoo's
9 > assets? Things like the logo, servers, name, ... oh and don't forget the
10 > money - all rather unimportant things, right?
11 >
12 Well I for one would like the option of never reincorporating to be
13 discussed. The only thing that would matter is the trademark/brand. Infra
14 seems to be owned by others in any case, people and organisations who use
15 Gentoo as part of their work and thus have a vested interest in it
16 continuing.
17
18 >> > I can understand that this angers the community and drobbins, as it
19 >> > angers me too.
20 >>
21 >> I don't. I *do* care about our users, about my ebuilds and the
22 >> technical side of things. I do *not* care about a foundation that's
23 >> supposed to be an IP container.
24 >
25 > Why do you not care about the assets of Gentoo?
26 >
27 As I said I don't think there's anything significant besides the trademark.
28 That's hardly been used to make any sort of money.
29
30 >> > But I think that some drastic actions must be taken,
31 >>
32 >> Why? To appease the mob? What horrible, catastrophic thing has
33 >> happened? Please explain that. I honestly don't see it.
34 >>
35 >> > maybe exactly because the bandwagon with the angry mob on it.
36 >>
37 >> Drastic measures because some people loudly claim the end of the world
38 >> is coming? No, thank you.
39 >
40 > This is all about politics and it is a shame the developers have to
41 > care at all about it.
42 > It is about opinions, actions, the missing actions and there consequences.
43 >
44 I haven't seen any consequences since the Foundation lapsed last summer.
45
46 As for opinions those appear to have been stirred up by Mr Robbins in a
47 political move to gain control of everyone's work and copyright. Attesting
48 motivation for that is speculation.
49
50 > And even worst it is about what could happen if. Some thing that you
51 > can NOT code, test and trow away if it leads to some outcome that is
52 > bad, ugly, catastrophic - it is to late by then.
53 >
54 Yeah, like what? We haven't had a Foundation for months and nothing bad has
55 happened.
56
57 >> >> The ebuilds keep coming, we're basically doing "business" as usual and
58 >> >> that should be enough, I'd say.
59 >> > Sure, all is fine in the land of Gentoo - problems are for people that
60 >> > have nothing better to do :(
61 >>
62 >> Name those problem, please. I'll gladly try to address them if I can.
63 >
64 > That is exactly why I started the wiki page - to name the problems,
65 > give info about them and even give you a head start by offering some
66 > possible fixes.
67 >
68 It'd be more persuasive if you specify them here to back up your argument.
69 I've openly stated that I think user involvement and conduct on the dev m-l
70 are the biggest problems I see. Users used to feel just as excluded when
71 drobbins was in charge, and Gentoo was not some mythically easy thing to
72 run back in those days. It's a hell of a lot easier to maintain now.
73
74 As for the dev m-l, let's see how the Council's new team manages. I don't
75 think they need a BDFL to sort that out, just some political will to
76 enforce the CoC. OFC I believe this should be as transparent and impartial
77 as possible, but I'm sure anyone who feels they haven't been dealt with
78 fairly will blog or post to the forums about it.
79
80 For the record: I'd still like drobbins involved, but I don't think his
81 terms were at all reasonable, and the way he went about it was
82 reprehensible imo. It was designed to cause the furore it did, and only
83 makes me give credence to the argument that much of the negative press on
84 distrowatch has come from an associate of his. It was a totally political
85 move, and not at all motivated by concern for Gentoo afaic. If he cared
86 that much, he'd have approached Mr Goodyear privately or on the nfp list if
87 he wanted to be "open". Not put everyone through all this stress.
88
89
90 --
91 gentoo-project@l.g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-project] Re: A proposal to get out of this mess Daniel Butzu <dbutzu@×××××.com>