Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo part II.

[splite]

On Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 09:46:21PM -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.

Or we can slowly smother ourselves with bureaucracy like Debian is doing.

> 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.

"Protection" from what?  Mongol hordes?  Nobody is forcing anyone to use
or develop for Gentoo.  If someone feels their "rights" are being violated,
they can fork away.

> References: The Debian Constitution
> http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution
>
> 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.

Since when is Gentoo a democratic institution?  I thought it was a useful
collection of bits.

> 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.

Or what?  Violent overthrow?  Fascist Gentoo oligarchs beware!

> 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)

Anything to avoid finishing sarge, apparently.

> 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).

Dammit, I paid $0 for this product and I demand my rights!

>	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.

Where do I send my campaign contribution?  Should that be in hard or
soft money?

> 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.

Motion to adjourn to the nearest pub for a swift half and some perspective.

> 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.

If you think the problem with Gentoo is that it's not ossifying as quickly
as Debian is, then by all means, fix away.

> Kind regards,
> //zhen

Right back atcha.

--
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list