[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-council] A Little Council Reform Anyone?

[Ferris McCormick]

There's a lot of good stuff to think about here.  For what it's worth,
some initial comments.

On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 19:33 -0700, Ned Ludd wrote:
> The dev population is quite a strange beast. I never expected to win.
> Why would you vote for somebody who did not even publish a manifesto?
> I don't know but I love you for it. My only intention was to help offset
> dev-zero being able force the will of outside forces upon us.
> Well that has been accomplished for now (w00t). But I
> never ever expected to be ranked so high. "/me blushes" So that means you
> guys/gals expect stuff from me. Well as I never wrote a manifesto but
> you still voted for me, I guess I should share some of my ideas on what
> I'd like to see happen over the following year.
>
> The devs have a voice one time of the year: when it comes time to vote.
> But what about the rest of the year? What happens when the person you
> voted for sucks? You are mostly powerless to do anything other than be
> really vocal in what seems like a never ending battle. That needs to
> change. I'm not quite sure how. But I'd like to see the dev body have a
> year-round voice in the council. Either via quick votes year-round
> on topics or simply by having discussion in the channel. Devs should have
> a right to voice their concerns to the council and engage in interactive
> conversations without being labeled troll.
>

We could provide for a recall vote, but I don't like that idea.
Discussion in channel is ideal if there is some way/someone to help keep
it civil enough to be useful.

> Another one of the things I'd like to see and help reform with the
> council. First off it spends way too much time on EAPI/PMS. There is no
> reason to make the council an extension of the portage team. Portage is
> still the official package manager of Gentoo. Granted it's good to
> accommodate others to an extent and I've always kept an open mind on other tools.
> Alternatives are good as there is always the right tool for the task at hand. But
> the council really should not be getting involved most of the time unless there
> is a conflict which can't be worked out among the masses and those trying to get
> portage to adopt new features. If the dev body wants it otherwise then
> I'd like to turn my vote over to you the devs. Each and every time the
> council wants/has to vote on an EAPI/PMS feature then I'll happily put my
> vote in your hands. You fire up that old votify system and use my vote
> as yours.

Not a bad idea if votify is agile enough.

> Note however that zmedico is not in favor of his time being
> wasted on deciding what PMS/EAPI features are good. He simply likes bugs
> and solving those. He likes giving us new features and tends to be more in
> favor of the devs and community figuring out what is best for us.
> An EAPI review committee could work well also. As long as we could get
> non bias people in there.
>
EAPI review committee --- please do.  I agree that council meetings are
not the place to do detail EAPI work.

> The council should be more about community vs technical issues only.
> We have lots of top level projects within Gentoo which have simply given
> up on the council as being an outlet to accomplish anything useful.
> It should be our job to look at the projects in Gentoo. Look at the ones
> that have a healthy community and encourage and promote them in ways.
>
Agreed.

> For example prefix comes to mind. It was a project I did not like at
> first. I'm not even a user. And there are things I surely don't like
> about it as is. But there is community support and it's the icing on the
> cake for some. So I'll back the fsck up and give credit where it's due.
> This is a perfectly good example of a project/fork that needs to come
> back home. Perhaps it's time to cherry pick some more stuff/people out
> of Sunrise?
>
> desultory points out any two council members can decide to approve anything,
> and that decision is considered to be equivalent to a full council vote
> until the next meeting. I vaguely recall that rule. I'm not sure about you,
> but I think that is a little to much power to put in the hands of a few.
> Any dev mind if we dump that power?
>
Dump it.

> Meetings will likely go back to one time per month and be +m with +v be
> handed out per request with open chat pre/post meetings.  The reason for
> this is to keep the meetings on-track. I won't engage in endless
> discussions. Facts can be presented. They will be reviewed on merit,
> technical and social.
>
Probably a good idea.  I don't much care for biweekly free-for-alls
either.

> The reason the meetings should go back to monthly is to allow those who
> are council members in Gentoo to accomplish things other than the
> council only. We all have personal lives and we all have our respective
> roles we play outside of the council. Another note on meetings. The time
> they are held currently don't fit well with my work schedule.
>
> I'm not subscribed directly to the gentoo-dev mailing list anymore
> outside of post-only. And I don't plan to re-subscribe. I do browse
> the archives regularly however. If there is some topic that should
> be brought to my attention please point it out to me directly on irc
> or CC: me.
>
> Thank you all and I will try not to let you down. Unless you were one of
> the ones who wanted to me lose. Then sorry, but I'm going to have fun
> disappointing you, by doing what is best for Gentoo.
>
> If you have any ideas on how you think the council should function or
> reform itself. Please start a new thread or email those who think will
> listen to those ideas. I'm open for some real change as long as it's
> for the the positive.
>
Thank you.

> So lets have some damn fun again !@#$
> Thanks.
>
>
Regards,
Ferris
-- 
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@g.o>
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Userrel, Trustees)