[gentoo-dev] [[e-mail]: Re: [gentoo-core] *IMPORTANT* top-level management structure!]

[Daniel Robbins]

----- Forwarded message from Daniel Robbins <drobbins@g.o> -----

To: Joshua Brindle <method@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-core@g.o
Organization: Gentoo Technologies, Inc.
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 21:14:19 -0600
From: Daniel Robbins <drobbins@g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-core] *IMPORTANT* top-level management structure!
Lines: 131

On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 09:15:00PM -0500, Joshua Brindle wrote:
> 1) I notice you are in many of the subprojects as manager,
> will this really solve the problem of all issues going through you?

Yes, the goal is to move me out of day-to-day management and into more of a
strategic role so I can focus on stuff like starting the not-for-profit.

> 2) I didn't see not-for-profit mentioned, don't you think this is
> essential to the success of gentoo?

Yes, I think it is. Having me move out of the day-to-day management efforts
will allow me to focus efforts on getting the not-for-profit started. Right
now I am simply too overwhelmed with work.

> 3) is this gentoo-managers list /IRC chat meant to be a non-public
> list, that is, not readable by the public (or other devs), that
> doesn't seem appropriate to me

The gentoo-managers list is intended for "meetings." I fully support having
the weekly manager status updates posted publicly on project pages as part
of our accountability to our users. I think the meetings themselves should
be private though. But each project's and subproject's weekly status should
be public information. 

> 4) gentoo-linux apparently (as currently) is being represented
> by 2-3 people, this is the same sort of bureaucracy that is hindering
> it now, could there be a group of people who have absolute authority
> by vote? <-- this is a big deal to me, and should be to everyone on
> this list

OK, lots of questions here and I'll try to address them one by one.

First, Gentoo doesn't have a bureaucracy. It's an unorganized mess. :)

Next: we will have a process for new top-level managers to be added, and
this process will need to begin immediately. The current top-level project
assignments in some cases model the current situation today; they are
certainly *not* all ideal. 

The top managers have too much work even after this organization. But at
least we have an *official procedure* in place to start delegating work
and responsibilities. That's the real focus of this proposal.

So, yes, the goal is to quickly yet responsibly "grow" our top managers, and
officially delegate responsibilities to sub-project managers, and at the
same time clearly document everything and establish regular meetings and
accountability to one another. That's the recursive nature of this plan.

The goal of this proposal is to give everyone the authority, accountability
and structure they need to get their relevant work done in a pleasant and
efficient way, and for Gentoo as a whole to meet deadlines.

As for the progression to the not-for-profit, the top-level managers will
likely become the not-for-profit's initial board of directors. At that
point, we will have some system in place for electing members of the board.

This is all a process, and this proposal is the beginning of this process.

> 8) was this an accident or was I ousted from the gentoo-bsd project?

You weren't ousted; you're still Lead of Gentoo/BSD but this project is now
(in this proposal) organized under the gentoo-alt metaproject. The
gentoo-alt metaproject will delegate authority to you for Gentoo/BSD.

What does this mean? That your Gentoo/BSD status updates will go to the
gentoo-alt manager, and that the gentoo-alt manager will be responsible
for presenting your status updates at the top-level manager meeting.

It's the same thing for the hardened metaproject. Just because you're
managing hardened doesn't mean that pebenito isn't working on SELinux.

Having a gentoo-alt manager allows there to be someone who is responsible
for making sure that the Gentoo/BSD and Gentoo/MacOS projects remain
coordinated and in communication, for example, just like you are doing
for hardened now.

So, top-level "metaproject" managers can also serve as sub-project leads.

Also, remember that this a draft and if you still have concerns about this
organization, you should talk to me privately about it so that I can resolve
the source of your concern.

Also, let me expand on this whole project/sub-project concept a bit. The
idea is that if the top managers are being regularly informed about what is
going on in a project, then they don't need to micro-manage. Once have a
system in place for them to get the information they need (status updates,)
that means that they *don't need to be directly involved in the work* to
know what's going on. Which, actually, is *what they (and I) want* although
it often doesn't seem like it.

Right now, the only way to know what's going on in a project is to be
involved in the work. That is *bad*. That means that right now, when the
"top" guys don't know what's going on in a project, they are suddenly
interested in micro-managing. Because right now, that is the only way
to *get informed!*

See how that works? The "top" guy doesn't want to micro-manage, but is
forced to so that he can know what is actually going on. That is the vicious
cycle that we are trying to stamp out because it gets everyone upset and
wastes everyone's time.

> 9) thanks for the props on my project organization :)

What can I say, you did an excellent job. That's what we need to do for all
meta-projects.

Best Regards,

-- 
Daniel Robbins
Chief Architect, Gentoo Linux
http://www.gentoo.org



----- End forwarded message -----

-- 
Daniel Robbins
Chief Architect, Gentoo Linux
http://www.gentoo.org