1 |
Stuart Herbert wrote: |
2 |
> On 8/24/06, Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
>> When I think about where Gentoo was when we turned into a democracy |
4 |
>> years ago, and where Gentoo is now, I don't see much of a difference on |
5 |
>> the large scale. We lack any global vision for where Gentoo is going, we |
6 |
>> can't agree on who our audience is, and everyone's just working on |
7 |
>> pretty much whatever they feel like. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> We've had a global vision for where Gentoo is going from before I |
10 |
> joined - Gentoo is here to create a source-based distribution where |
11 |
> each package is as close to what $UPSTREAM intended it to be as |
12 |
> possible. We're not trying to take $UPSTREAM packages and innovate |
13 |
> with them - we're here to do a first class job of packaging them up. |
14 |
|
15 |
A distribution is more than just an entity that packages upstream |
16 |
tarballs. I agree with your point, but it misses a large chunk of what |
17 |
we do. |
18 |
|
19 |
If this is the Gentoo vision, then why are we even doing anything else? |
20 |
We've already reached our only goal, which is packaging stuff, and all |
21 |
we need to do is bump it. |
22 |
|
23 |
People need to feel that Gentoo is _moving forward_, that it's actually |
24 |
going somewhere. |
25 |
|
26 |
> Scaling wasn't the only issue. There were too many topics - |
27 |
> especially when it came to servers and web-related issues - that were |
28 |
> just beyond Daniel's experience and understanding. You also left Kurt |
29 |
> out as one of the lieutenants. |
30 |
|
31 |
OK, sure, add Kurt to the list for the record. But that's not really |
32 |
part of my point. |
33 |
|
34 |
> That hierarchy was always flawed. Server-related matters never had a |
35 |
> seat at the top table, and ended up being represented by the base |
36 |
> systems manager. That actually turned out quite well for us, because |
37 |
> folks simply left us alone to get on with things. |
38 |
|
39 |
Then why wasn't the hierarchy fixed? Instead we somehow ended up in this |
40 |
huge metastructure debate and changed everything around. |
41 |
|
42 |
>> Democratic elections entered Gentoo when we realized that we needed to |
43 |
>> create a new top-level project for all the desktop work, because it |
44 |
>> didn't fit into any existing project. Since managers already voted |
45 |
>> amongst themselves on GLEPs, it seemed like a natural extension for them |
46 |
>> to vote on a new manager. The call for nominations is archived online. |
47 |
>> I'd been a developer for around six months at this point, and by then I |
48 |
>> was the lead X maintainer. Brandon Hale was active in maintaining window |
49 |
>> managers and other miscellaneous applets and such. Turns out that the |
50 |
>> vote tied, so we became co-managers. |
51 |
>> |
52 |
>> I didn't realize it at the time, but that was the beginning of a very |
53 |
>> slippery slope. |
54 |
>> |
55 |
>> Gentoo used to be a courteous, friendly development community where |
56 |
>> nobody was afraid to speak his mind for fear of insult and injury. I see |
57 |
>> a clear correlation between the growth in democracy and the departure of |
58 |
>> courtesy. Once people are empowered to vote on every decision, rather |
59 |
>> than just having their discussion taken as input in a decision, they get |
60 |
>> a lot more vehement, argumentative and forceful about getting their way. |
61 |
>> _Flamewars and loud arguments going on for hundreds of posts have become |
62 |
>> commonplace, despite the occasional outcry_. |
63 |
> |
64 |
> Except ... even today, folks simply aren't empowered to vote on every |
65 |
> decision (other than by voting with their feet). Your hypothesis |
66 |
> seems to be based on a flawed model of how Gentoo works, I'm afraid. |
67 |
|
68 |
"Official" votes, sure. But what about GLEP discussions on -dev? That's |
69 |
the only way anything major ever happens, and it might as well be a |
70 |
requirement for a unanimous vote among all ~350 developers. The only |
71 |
time I can recall even a single dissenter before a GLEP moved on to the |
72 |
council was brix on Sunrise. |
73 |
|
74 |
>> The vocal minority often gets its way, despite 99% of the other |
75 |
>> developers being happy with any given situation. |
76 |
> |
77 |
> This is hardly a new phenomenon invented by Gentoo. You'll find |
78 |
> tonnes about this under topics such as "growing pains", and also |
79 |
> "management by ego". |
80 |
> |
81 |
> The basic cause always comes down to weak or non-existent management. |
82 |
|
83 |
Yes, and that's exactly my point. We need stronger management. |
84 |
|
85 |
>> Everyone treated it like a world of extremes of |
86 |
>> good and evil, where democracy is absolutely good and purity, and |
87 |
>> anything other than that is evil. This added bureaucracy has essentially |
88 |
>> rendered this side of devrel powerless, meaningless and useless. |
89 |
> |
90 |
> I'm not sure how you can justify that statement. To the best of my |
91 |
> knowledge, that system has only been tested in full the once - when |
92 |
> Brian was suspended from the project and Ciaran was expelled. |
93 |
|
94 |
That in itself is proof enough. There were numerous instances where it |
95 |
_should_ have been tested but wasn't, because of all the hassle required |
96 |
to do anything. |
97 |
|
98 |
>> All in all, the vocal minority has done a splendid job of becoming more |
99 |
>> influential, crippling Gentoo's ability to do anything at all about its |
100 |
>> members, their flames, their outstanding work at ruining people's fun |
101 |
>> and enjoyment of Gentoo, and their waste of everyone else's time. |
102 |
> |
103 |
> Can you back this up with three examples in the last twelve months |
104 |
> where this has happened? |
105 |
|
106 |
Any long debate where more than 25% of the posts came from a single person. |
107 |
|
108 |
> Our problem is that we have a critical mass of groups who do not share |
109 |
> a culture to bind them together, and drive them to overcome their |
110 |
> differences. |
111 |
|
112 |
I'll agree with that. |
113 |
|
114 |
>> But what about Gentoo? We don't have any overriding principles like this |
115 |
>> from which all of the standards for behavior derive. Instead, we have a |
116 |
>> large document explaining specifically and in detail what's allowed and |
117 |
>> what isn't, and even that is ignored. Because of the bureaucracy and the |
118 |
>> lack of respect for devrel's role, we're effectively powerless to do |
119 |
>> anything when people behave in a way for which the FreeBSD project's |
120 |
>> leadership would kick them to the curb. |
121 |
> |
122 |
> Hrm. Where is this lack of respect for devrel being displayed today? |
123 |
> What forms does this lack of respect take? If there's a lack of |
124 |
> respect at the moment, it's not for devrel. |
125 |
|
126 |
How about in Gentoo's complete inability to do anything about the |
127 |
constant trolling and people acting like assholes? We say we're about |
128 |
courtesy but we don't (can't?) do a damn thing about it, because it |
129 |
requires a huge, convoluted investigation and trial and nobody's willing |
130 |
to waste that much time. |
131 |
|
132 |
I know this is partially changing, but I'm unsure that any group outside |
133 |
of the council will ever be trusted to suspend or kick people out. |
134 |
|
135 |
> A good way to sort that out is to get them together in the physical |
136 |
> world, and use group de-polarisation exercises to help folks |
137 |
> understand that their view of the world isn't the only view that is |
138 |
> valid. This is why I'm hoping to see Gentoo establish a regular |
139 |
> international dev conference. You'll find that the vast majority of |
140 |
> issues won't arise once folks actually know each other better - and |
141 |
> the personality clashes that are left are easier to see for what they |
142 |
> are. |
143 |
|
144 |
Some Debian developers commented on my blog about how valuable DebConf |
145 |
was for this. |
146 |
|
147 |
> I'd also argue that we're _not_ powerless. It wasn't pleasant, but |
148 |
> the old system has shown that we can deal with genuine trouble makers. |
149 |
|
150 |
Barely, and with enormous effort ... |
151 |
|
152 |
>> I'm not the only one to suggest that a democracy isn't the most |
153 |
>> productive way to run Gentoo. When people wanted to change in how Gentoo |
154 |
>> was run, democracy was the only option considered, rather than simply |
155 |
>> changing the leaders. There's an ongoing assumption that if problems |
156 |
>> exist, it must be somewhere in the structure rather than in the people. |
157 |
> |
158 |
> We don't have a democracy. Gentoo is largely a workocracy (there must |
159 |
> be a better word for it ;), where the vast majority decisions are made |
160 |
> by the folks who actually do the work. |
161 |
|
162 |
Only the small-scale decisions. |
163 |
|
164 |
> Folks don't vote on stuff. To pick a recent example, none of the |
165 |
> folks who opposed Sunrise actually had any means to vote to prevent it |
166 |
> happening. What they had to do was to lobby the council, who were the |
167 |
> only folks with a vote. |
168 |
|
169 |
Oh, gimme a break. Screaming about it on -dev for hundreds of posts |
170 |
isn't just equivalent to a vote, it's better. It makes people think |
171 |
there's more than 2 developers opposed to it. |
172 |
|
173 |
> If we had actually tried a democracy (something I'm instinctively |
174 |
> against, but rationally am becoming more and more interested in), your |
175 |
> arguments would maybe carry some weight. But, the clear fact of the |
176 |
> matter is that we haven't - and that leaves your arguments built on |
177 |
> sand. |
178 |
|
179 |
Untrue, voices make a democracy. |
180 |
|
181 |
> I'm naturally suspicious of anyone who seeks office on a platform of |
182 |
> talking about the need to beef up the powers of an unelected body (ie |
183 |
> devrel) |
184 |
|
185 |
I'd rather get rid of devrel altogether (at least its conflict |
186 |
resolution role) and have the council deal with this. |
187 |
|
188 |
You say "unelected" like it's evil. In a company, nobody gets elected, |
189 |
but a hell of a lot of work happens. |
190 |
|
191 |
> You've just lost my vote. |
192 |
|
193 |
What vote? I'm not running for anything, and I have no desire to do so. |
194 |
I'm just trying to get people interested in fixing Gentoo so it's not |
195 |
stuck in the mud. |
196 |
|
197 |
> I'm not standing for election, but maybe someone who is would be |
198 |
> interested in investigating some ideas Sejo discussed with me when he |
199 |
> left us. The summary is my own; hopefully I've captured Sejo's ideas |
200 |
> accurately. |
201 |
> |
202 |
> * Every staff member has to belong to a team. You join a team by |
203 |
> being voted onto the team by the other members of the team. They |
204 |
> don't vote you in, you can't join. |
205 |
> * If you're not part of any team, your rights and privileges as a |
206 |
> staff member are automatically terminated. There's no place to go to |
207 |
> appeal. |
208 |
> * You can be voted off the team at any time. The teams are self-managing. |
209 |
|
210 |
The goal? |
211 |
|
212 |
Thanks, |
213 |
Donnie |
214 |
-- |
215 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |