Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] [RFC] New metastructure proposal

[Chris Gianelloni]

On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 00:05 +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> I don't think this is the reason people are leaving.

Agreed.

> I think people are leaving because a lack of direction.

I also agree here, but only to an extent.

> I am not aware of any goal Gentoo distribution wish to acquire. For
> example: Do we wish to use a mainstream distribution? Do we aim to a
> specific user community? Or Do we develop distribution for our use?

Currently, we do not have any real global goals set out.

> If you wish to be (And I think we should be) mainstream distribution,
> we should derive targets, such as QA level, response times and
> content.

I agree that we should definitely have some measurable goals.

> Being more modular is one technical feature to achieve better
> stability. But we should discuss the basics first.

Being modular in the sense of being able to easily replace code, sure.
Being modular in the sense stated by Alexandre, I'm not sure.  I just
don't see how making everybody entirely independent will help us work
together.  It just seems so counter-productive to the idea of
cooperation to artificially separate people off into smaller
territories.

> I hear a lot that open source project with unpaid developers cannot be
> committed to deadlines or requirements from its developers, but I
> disagree. There can be an open source project with high quality
> products and dead lines, if these properly defined.

Agreed.  It works quite well within our own ranks, even, with Release
Engineering.  The only time we really miss deadlines are due to
technical reasons (security, things being broken, etc) that are
unforeseen.

> I must disclose that in my view whenever a large group of people are
> doing something together, some kind of hierarchy must be in place. And
> I am not talking about current council, it seems that current council
> does not LEAD Gentoo anywhere.

I agree that we need a formal hierarchy, but must protest that the
current Council doesn't lead.  The problem is that every time we *try*
to lead, we get a ton of developer backlash, which leads to things like
this proposal to try to reduce the Council's ability to lead.  So which
is it?  Do people want the Council to lead or not?  If the answer is no,
then why do we even *have* a Council?

> I read that sometime in history there was an effort to impose
> structural format on the community, but then Daniel Robbins left?

It was the structure that we had between Daniel leaving and the current
Council, and it was pretty much a disaster.  The ineffectual nature of
that structure is what led us to the current structure.

> If we wish to be a major distribution, we must grow. If we to grow we
> must organize our-self better, and work toward a common goal. Common
> goal forces decision making. Decision making forces leadership.
> Leadership forces vision.

I tend to think that a "common goal" isn't necessarily something that we
need.  We do need direction, but I don't think that everyone needs to be
working towards the same goals, especially when we have projects that
are "at odds" with each other.  If we focus on being the best desktop
distribution, what happens to embedded?  Instead, we need several
directions, based on functional differences.

Via this sort of breakdown I could see the following:

Core system
Desktop
Server/Hardened
Embedded
Documentation
Release Engineering

Even these are not static.  They could be changed fairly easily.  These
groupings are done entirely by function.  If we were to think of this as
a client/provider relationship, there would be certain functional
dependencies.  Everybody would depend on the Core system group.
Everybody would depend on documentation.  Release Engineering would
depend on everyone else.  Each of these different groups would easily be
able to have their own goals and visions, just like divisional units
within a company can have different goals.  Core system would be
interested in solidifying and stabilizing the core of Gentoo.  Desktop
would be working towards making Gentoo more friendly to desktop users.
While the goals aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, they're
different.  The same could be said for any of the other groups.

> Is there any vision?

Of course there is some vision.  The Council has plenty of ideas and
lots of ways where we can lead Gentoo.  Why don't we?  Because, quite
frankly, we're sick of the miles of bullshit attached to every single
minor decision made.  I'm speaking not for every member of the Council,
but from my own perceptions and from the grumblings I've heard from many
other Council members during conversations.

> Now, for your idea.
> When I written something similar in the past, someone told me that it
> was already suggested... I don't know why it wasn't accepted.

I still think it's a fairly good idea for how Gentoo should be
organized.  I just don't see how changing our organization will solve
our most pressing current issues.  I'd rather clean the house up a bit
before we decide to try to remodel it.

<snip>

The ideas of having differing metrics for different packages is really a
good one.  It doesn't require overlays to accomplish, either.  The only
real problem I see with it is determining how to rate the packages.

> But I believe we should first discuss the community goals, then derive
> a technical solution.

Agreed.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation