Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo part II.

[Brandon Low]

On Mon, 07/14/03 at 21:46:21 -0400, John Davis wrote:
> Gentoo is at a crossroads: We can either continue to change and improve our management structure, or simply die like many other Linux distributions.
I agree, we are at a crossroads, but I disagree about which of the many
branches we should follow.  I think we have got the management thing
about as big as it needs to be, if we go any further toward managing
things, we're going to lose a lot of what many of us consider what is
GOOD about Gentoo, the FUN, the excitement, the 'cool' factor of being
able to SEE changes help users in almost real time without having to
wade through bullshit to do it.
>
> In light of this issue, I propose the following changes to the Gentoo management structure:
>
> 1. Constitution
> 	All great organizations realize the need to protect their most important asset, their volunteers and employees. Gentoo does not have such a document, therefore there is no 'legal' protection for the developers and volunteers. Although we all know that Gentoo is commited to this, it is nowhere in writing.
>
> References: The Debian Constitution
> http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution
We have the Gentoo Social Contract, that is the only guarantee that any
users should really need, it ensures that if anyone feels that they need
a different structure than what Gentoo currently offers they are free to
fork without retribution, and to have a good tiem doing it.  To further
constitutionalize ourselves and turn ourselves into a debian like
monstrosity would not help us but rather hinder us  by alienating our
most important asset: our users.  These are users who (I would guess)
close to half run ~x86 bleeding edge sometimes broken apps because it is
FUN.  These people have NO interest in politics or in the runnings of an
OSS project, they just want to see their favorite apps, and the latest
greatest toys on their desktops NOW, and they will not only help, but
ENJOY helping to fix issues which come up.
>
> 2. Open voting
> 	At this point in time, there is no published ruleset for voting, and there is no public record of voting results. There is also no offical published method of calculating a voting quorum. Additionally, with regard to the election of new managers, the vote is kept secret.
>
> In order for any democratic system that uses voting to be successful, there *must* be accountability, concrete rules, and open results. How can there possibly be accountability if the results of the vote are kept completely secret? The find line between an oligarchy and a representative democracy is voting accountability. The developers, managers, and uses *must* know that the Gentoo voting process is secure in its philosophy and practice.
>
> References:
> http://www.debian.org/vote/ (Voting policy)
> http://www.debian.org/vote/2002/vote_0001 (Sample voting results)
> http://www.debian.org/vote/howto_vote (Sample voting ballot)
Someone else said this, but WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY, we are a loosely
conglomorated group of friends and associates with the common goal (and
this is the only common goal we really have) of making Gentoo GREAT, and
that is something I think we are all trying to do, but the problem is
that tryin to turn Gentoo into some kind of socio/political funhouse
ISN'T going allow the free and rapid development that we've been able to
maintain thus far.  What has let Gentoo become great is that everyone
has been completely free in their 'development time' to do whatever they
feel they need to do to better the distro, yes that meant that many
great projects that had a lot of hours in them got thrown out, but many
others that may never have even been started if everyone was doing
development tasks as assigned have become core aspects of our system.
>
> 3. Defined terms for managers
> 	In order to preserve the balance of power, while at the same time protecting the rights and interests of the users and developers, it is necessary that all manager positions have a clear term length along with a clear and defined manager voting process (see above).
>
> 	The developers and users need to make sure that their interests are being maintained, and that the managers are true delegates for the Gentoo community. The developers, as well as managers, need to ensure that this stays true through normal managerial election.
>
See above, we're not a democracy, managers in an OSS project are there
because they earned the respect of their peers sufficiently to get that
place.  I DARE ** DARE ** someone to try to convince Linus or any of his
core people to have 'terms of office' in their roles, and see just how
fast whomever suggests it bites the dust.
> 4. Clear meeting procedure
> 	I encourage all developers and managers to review Robert's Book of Rules, as it provides invaluable information on proactive meeting procedure.
>
> By creating this document, I hope to help fix the problems that I see with Gentoo Linux. I believe that positive, intellectual conversation can lead us to the light at the end of the tunnel. I encourage you all to participate in this discussion, but please restrain from anger, lashing out, etc.
You win on this point, we already have one, and enhancing it to further
our ability to communicate wouldn't hurt a bit.
>
> Kind regards,
> //zhen
>
No offence, Zhen, I like you, and I like your work, but I almost
completely disagree about the best direction for this project to take in
order to remain the great and fun project it is and to be able to
continue to grow and innovate in the great ways it has been for recent
years.

Sincerely,

Brandon Low

> --
> 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.