| 1 |
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 09:50:04 +0100 |
| 2 |
"Stuart Herbert" <stuart.herbert@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> We've had a global vision for where Gentoo is going from before I |
| 5 |
> joined - Gentoo is here to create a source-based distribution where |
| 6 |
> each package is as close to what $UPSTREAM intended it to be as |
| 7 |
> possible. We're not trying to take $UPSTREAM packages and innovate |
| 8 |
> with them - we're here to do a first class job of packaging them up. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
While that's generally the case, it's not always true; in particular |
| 11 |
the hardened project deliberately causes stuff to be built differently |
| 12 |
to the way upstream expect. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
This illustrates that there is more than one vision, and what's good |
| 15 |
about Gentoo is that we can support different visions without having to |
| 16 |
fork the whole of Gentoo. The increased use of overlays helps to scale |
| 17 |
this up. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
>... |
| 20 |
> We don't have a democracy. Gentoo is largely a workocracy (there must |
| 21 |
> be a better word for it ;), where the vast majority decisions are made |
| 22 |
> by the folks who actually do the work. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Meritocracy, perhaps. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
>... |
| 27 |
> * Every staff member has to belong to a team. You join a team by |
| 28 |
> being voted onto the team by the other members of the team. They |
| 29 |
> don't vote you in, you can't join. |
| 30 |
> * If you're not part of any team, your rights and privileges as a |
| 31 |
> staff member are automatically terminated. There's no place to go to |
| 32 |
> appeal. |
| 33 |
> * You can be voted off the team at any time. The teams are |
| 34 |
> self-managing. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
I figured this is pretty much how it works at the moment, just without |
| 37 |
the formality. You don't just attach yourself to a team and start |
| 38 |
stomping over the work of that team - acceptability of what you do is |
| 39 |
by consent of the team. The lack of formality means that if the |
| 40 |
team doesn't explicitly object to something you propose (e.g. what you |
| 41 |
propose doesn't affect what the rest of the team do, or if it does |
| 42 |
they don't care), you can just go ahead. Your summary implies explicit |
| 43 |
consent from the team would be needed, which I don't think would be a |
| 44 |
good idea. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
-- |
| 47 |
Kevin F. Quinn |
Archives