On 04/22/2010 07:41 AM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> My concern here is the idea that the council should be able to "disband"
> a project or turn it around 180 degrees. If we open the door to this,
> then we'll be throwing away the principles that any developer can create
> a project, that a team acts as its members choose to and that in the end
> some choices fall to those who do the work.
Not at all - developers could still do all of this, as long as they
don't do anything so drastically bad for the distro that the council
would need to step in.
The council should of course use discretion in its actions, and it
should always just talk to somebody before they go booting people/etc.
> Besides, if the council
> were to "disband" a team or try to force a policy on it, how do you
> think that would work if there were no team members left and no one
> stepped up?
Again, a good reason for the council to use discretion. However, in
some cases it would be better to not have a team at all than to have a
team acting contrary to the overall distro's interests.
> Finally, in extreme cases, the council can also have a word
> regarding individual developers and or projects.
How? This is exactly what I'm proposing - that in extreme cases the
council can intervene directly as needed. If the council can't do this,
then how can they "have a word" unless you literally mean nothing more
> Gentoo isn't exactly a "democracy" and therefore such comparisons
> usually are not adequate for us.
Perhaps not purely so, it is a bit more of a meritocracy, but it is
essentially democratic. I don't see why democracy is a bad thing, as
long as it doesn't involve those who don't do anything wielding power
over those who do. Having at least a little control over the membership
roles should mitigate this.
> Gentoo (the distribution) is not a Corporation, so that comparison isn't
> adequate as well.
What is a corporation? It is essentially a body of people aligned to a
common purpose. The same governance models apply to everything from
businesses to clubs to professional organizations to churches to
parliaments. Perhaps all these organizations have figured out that this
model works fairly well - or at least better than the alternatives.
Honestly, I don't really see what cohesive alternative you're offering
other than a loose confederation with oversight by closed bodies.
> But Developer Relations isn't a "Boy's Club" or the only "not so open"
> group in Gentoo. There's also User Relations. The infrastructure team,
> for its own responsibility and abilities, as far as I know, has always
> invited members in and doesn't have open membership. To a certain extent
> the QA team has worked that way too and I'm sure most of us would like
> QA members to exhibit certain qualities. Then there's PR.
I don't think that any of these organizations are doing a bad job. I'm
not sure they should be open to anybody who wants to sign up. However,
there should always be oversight. That is really all I'm proposing.
Having council oversight actually frees up these organzations to not
feel as beholden to admit devs at large, since the council can hold them
In the end there will always be oversight - right now it isn't written
down, but in the end SOMEBODY or some group is in charge. I guess it
effectively is whoever has root on the servers, or perhaps the trustees
since they can determine who can use the name Gentoo. All I'm saying is
that we should realize that governance is necessary and set up the best
form of governance we can have.
> A former council did have some influence, not directly in the KDE
> project, but by having DevRel evaluate and act on one of its members -
> at the time the Lead. That action did had a profound impact in the
> project - it almost killed it and it took a long time for KDE to get
> back in shape.
And in the end, was Gentoo as a whole better off or worse off?
Sometimes you need to take a step back to take a step forward. I have
no idea what the specifics of this situation were, so I can't comment on
whether I agree or disagree with what the council did. However, if a
key contributor to Gentoo is doing more harm than good by driving others
away, then it might be better for them to not be around.
Donnie gave a good talk to this effect:
> To be clear, I do want the Council to have influence over Gentoo, but I
> don't like the idea of "carte blanche" and therefore am concerned about
> the degree and method by which the council should "leverage" its influence.
Well, are there any alternatives short of the Council being able to do
nothing but ask people nicely to not destroy the distro? I'm fine with
checks and balances, but in the end somebody needs to have the final
say, and I'd rather see that be a body elected by all - either the
trustees or the council.
Maybe there are some ways to address the concern of a runaway council.