Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo part III?

[John Davis]

> I really haven't seen any flames. I don't think it's appropriate to label
> those who happen to plainly disagree with you as flamers.
>

I think that we are in a misunderstanding here. Usually, when someone replies to me ranting, I consider that a flame because there is no reason to talk in that tone. Maybe I mislabeled, if I did, I am sorry.

> And since you are a Gentoo developer and represent this project, I'd ask
> that you please stop taking this approach because I find it to be
> disrespectful to our users.
>

What approach? The mail or the 'flamer' accusation? I only accused one such person, and as I have said, I am sorry if I was wrong. All of the other people that have disagreed with me have done so in a fair manner, and I have addressed them as such. I don't mind if people disagree with me, in fact I enjoy it. Many opinions are the only way to create one majority agreement.

> Your comment above is patronizing to our users who are simply trying to
> share their opinions.
>

Opinions and flames are two entirely different things. I am sure that most others can agree with this.

> > So why would I propose something like this?
>
> I think it's because a few days ago, you did not get a position within the
> project that you wanted. Therefore, you have an axe to grind with the
> management team. That's my personal theory. I don't think it's based on your
> year of careful observation, as much as I'd like to believe it.
>

Daniel, I am sorry to find out that you believe this. Of course, I cannot change your mind, but I can at least try to provide some information.

I have not mentioned my position change in the project *at all* in my proposal. Although the events leading up to that vote have something to do with my proposal, they do not constitute the entire reason I decided to write it. I decided to write the proposal because I deeply care about the direction of Gentoo Linux, and the simple reason that I see problems that can be easily remedied.

I have no axe to grind with the management team. What's done is done, no matter if it was right or wrong. It is time to move on, fix problems, rinse, wash, and repeat. If you would like to make this a confrontation, be my guest, I just will have no part in it. 

> Some of your ideas might be OK if they are refined a bit more and their
> scope is defined -- I am very much in agreement with Brandon Low's view --
> which is identical to Kurt Lieber's view, from what I can tell.  We need to
> improve in areas so we can grow and improve, but without crippling what
> makes Gentoo "Gentoo."
>

Right, we need to do exactly that. I would like to know one thing though, how are democratic ideas and procedures damaging to the 'Gentoo way'? Am I missing something? If my proposals would damage Gentoo Linux, which I firmly believe they will not, then we all need to reconsider what exactly the 'Gentoo way' is. Maybe you could inform us?

> However, your condescending attitude towards our users gives me the
> impression that you are still a bit out of sorts over recent events, and may
> not be the best person to spearhead this effort you are undertaking.
>

Whether or not I spearhead *my* effort is my decision.

I am sore about what happened, but I am trying my best to be proactive, and I think that I am doing a very good job at it.

As far as being condescending to our users, you are off base. I have been trying very hard to facilitate educational and fair discussion. If anyone feels that I have wronged them, please inform me, and I will apoligize publicly, if applicable.

> We already have a management team that is actively and swiftly getting
> things done, as you know:
>
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/hardened/
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/infrastructure/
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gentoo-alt/
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/releng/
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/alpha/
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gdp/
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/metastructure/
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/portage/
>

I never said that we didn't. All that I am suggesting is changes and improvements.

> Currently, new managers are elected by unanimous vote of the existing
> managers. I am sorry you are upset that you were not elected as manager, but
> I also think it's disingenuous for you to *not* mention this fact when you
> are proposing ideas like term limits and, as a developer, spearheading this
> "reform" campaign rather than assisting in the existing and ambitious effort
> that is underway.

This is not assisting? Is open discussion something that does not 'help'? What is your definition of help? As far as projects, if you don't remember, I **created** the entire GDP project page, including the Roadmap, sub-projects, etc. 

Like I said Daniel, I am trying my best to be proactive and help in anyway that I can. If proposing improvements to management is counterproductive to the 'Gentoo way' aforementioned, then I am working for the wrong distribution.

>
> I think that what happened a few days ago is connected to your term limits
> idea, as an example, as well as being a large motivating factor for your
> "reform" effort.  Can you honestly claim that you had this term limits idea
> *before* you were not elected to a manager position? Can you honestly say
> that you are dispassionate -- unaffected by your own personal emotions -- in
> your analysis of what Gentoo currently needs?
>
> I don't think you can say that.

As far as terms, that is not related at all to my position. The term idea came about because it is an accepted way to make sure that managers of any organization remain the trustees of their constituency.

And yes, I can say that my personal emotions did not have an impact on my recent proposal. Again, for the hundreth time, my proposal was crafted because I saw the need for improvements.

>
> You have had good ideas about our management structure in the past, but this
> new effort is clearly different from your previous collaborative idea
> sharing, both in content, tone, and in how you are choosing to interact with
> users who happen to have differing views. It feels like a political campaign.
>

Your feelings are, well, your feelings. I am sorry if you feel that way.

> And I would have sent this email privately if not for the fact that you are
> being unreasonable in your posts. Since you are not representing Gentoo in a way
> that I consider to be appropriate, I need to jump in like this and say "I
> disagree with your approach." Because at this point, it's important for our
> users to know that you certainly don't represent my ideas or views, and that
> your general vision may not be entirely shared by those on our management
> team.
>

Unreasonable? So it is unreasonable to open a forums about issues that are a point of contention with you? As for not sharing your views Daniel, the whole purpose of the management restructuring was to remove absolute power from one single entity. You are not Gentoo Linux Open Source Project Daniel Robbins, the management team and developers are. I have not been met with any resistance up to this point, in fact, most people have been very willing to communicate with me, compromise with me, etc. I will *not* be censored just because you do not believe with me.

> I don't want our users to get the idea that your ideas necessarily reflect
> where Gentoo is headed. Some of your ideas may be implemented, some may not,
> but we are not on a holy mission to create a bureaucracy. As we move forward
> in our efforts to establish a not-for-profit entity, it's important for our
> users to know that we are aggressively working to intentify the good things
> that makes Gentoo "Gentoo" and ensure that they remain intact.
>

It is very important to know, and to a point, be involved, which is what the forum I opened is doing.

> We are being very careful to not destroy the very good things about Gentoo
> in our efforts to improve areas that need to be improved. I seen it clearly
> demonstrated that our management team is very much attuned to this critical
> balance. I encourage you to support their efforts.
>

I do support them, but obviously, not as you define 'support'. Again, I state:

I WILL NOT be censored in my proposals. They are not meant to be inflammatory, as you are trying to make them. All that I am doing is trying to open an intellectual dialogue about the problems that I see within the Gentoo management structure. I have absolutely no bone to pick with the management team, and I do not mean to mar the name of Gentoo Linux.

I am very sorry if I have offended you Daniel, but I am not on the offensive against you or Gentoo. If you wish to take disciplinary action against me, so be it, just realize that you are setting a precedent for Gentoo, a precedent that is loathed by all.

Regards,
//zhen


-- 
John Davis
Gentoo Linux Developer
<http://www.gentoo.org/~zhen>

----
Knowledge can be more terrible than ignorance if you're powerless to change your world.