| 1 |
On Fri, 2019-09-06 at 17:48 +0100, Michael Everitt wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 06/09/19 15:36, Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 06:51:00PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 6:42 PM Robin H. Johnson < |
| 5 |
> > > robbat2@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > > On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 01:45:25PM -0700, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 7 |
> > > > > > 3. It is really meaningless. Casting a vote does not |
| 8 |
> > > > > > really indicate |
| 9 |
> > > > > > any interest in GF. It only indicates that someone has |
| 10 |
> > > > > > done the minimal |
| 11 |
> > > > > > effort to avoid being kicked. There is no reason to |
| 12 |
> > > > > > conflate the two. |
| 13 |
> > > > > I'm certainly interested in other avenues of interest, but I |
| 14 |
> > > > > don't see very |
| 15 |
> > > > > many in this thread other than "AGM attendance" and "asking |
| 16 |
> > > > > people if they |
| 17 |
> > > > > are interested[0]" |
| 18 |
> > > > - Does involvement on mailing lists count? |
| 19 |
> > > > - What other ways outside development might somebody be |
| 20 |
> > > > involved in |
| 21 |
> > > > Gentoo? Not everybody is a developer, let alone an ebuild |
| 22 |
> > > > developer. |
| 23 |
> > > > What if we wound up with PR people who weren't devs at all, |
| 24 |
> > > > but loved |
| 25 |
> > > > to talk about Gentoo? |
| 26 |
> > > Gentoo developers do not have to have commit access. If somebody |
| 27 |
> > > is |
| 28 |
> > > doing significant PR work for Gentoo then they should be made a |
| 29 |
> > > developer. Developers do not need to pass the ebuild quiz. |
| 30 |
> > I meant "developer" as the generic "one who develops software". |
| 31 |
> > Ebuilds are not the only code-like activity, there's multiple other |
| 32 |
> > software packages that Gentoo relies on: openrc, netifrc, |
| 33 |
> > genkernel, |
| 34 |
> > catalyst, eselect are some of them. |
| 35 |
> > They may have commit access to those packages, and not to ebuilds. |
| 36 |
> > |
| 37 |
> > I need to distinguish between: |
| 38 |
> > - ebuild coding contribution |
| 39 |
> > - non-ebuild-coding contribution |
| 40 |
> > - non-coding contribution |
| 41 |
> > |
| 42 |
> > > Anybody with an @g.o email address is a developer. |
| 43 |
> > > |
| 44 |
> > > We used to use the term "staff" but anybody who used to be |
| 45 |
> > > considered |
| 46 |
> > > "staff" is now considered a "developer." |
| 47 |
> > I stated when the switch away from "staff" was done, that I felt we |
| 48 |
> > were |
| 49 |
> > doing ourselves a dis-service by not picking a better word than |
| 50 |
> > "developer" - something that includes all of the contributions |
| 51 |
> > above, |
| 52 |
> > without implying specific technical skills. "Contributor" was down- |
| 53 |
> > voted |
| 54 |
> > at the time. |
| 55 |
> > |
| 56 |
> Reading (somewhat extensively) between the lines, there is a subtle |
| 57 |
> move |
| 58 |
> for those developing code and ebuilds to "take over" control and |
| 59 |
> management |
| 60 |
> of the distribution (cf. electorate of 'council'). Whether this is |
| 61 |
> something that is (1) really happening or (2) desirable, I shall |
| 62 |
> leave as |
| 63 |
> an exercise for the reader; but I thought was probably worth |
| 64 |
> highlighting. |
| 65 |
> |
| 66 |
> |
| 67 |
> |
| 68 |
As a long time former dev, who went through the rough times that |
| 69 |
necessitated the formation of the foundation, I felt I needed to |
| 70 |
respond to these posts. First of all, the foundation was formed in |
| 71 |
defense of the exact situation that Gentoo is facing now, as a control |
| 72 |
buffer keeping certain developers from literally taking over every |
| 73 |
aspect of the distro for their own gain. Whether that gain be money, |
| 74 |
power, or posturing for a job at Red Hat et al. The foundation has |
| 75 |
systemically been weakened, preening membership by any means possible. |
| 76 |
Eventually we will be left with just those developers seeking these |
| 77 |
gains ie. umbrella. This directly puts Gentoo right back in harms way, |
| 78 |
the original position it was pre-foundation. |
| 79 |
|
| 80 |
I lost my membership after missing a couple votes I assume, even |
| 81 |
though I had thought I was assured a lifetime seat being an original |
| 82 |
member. I know there are lots of other ex-developers out there who |
| 83 |
still love Gentoo at heart and deserve their right to protect its |
| 84 |
direction and IP from these threats from within. I personally think the |
| 85 |
foundation should be stengthened and more a separation from developer |
| 86 |
to foundation member. It's almost a conflict of interest or just asking |
| 87 |
for corruption to be in control of the foundation and the council. |
| 88 |
Anyway, now I'm rambling, so in closing, No changes unless they are to |
| 89 |
add and or strengthen foundation and not weaken it further. THANKS |
Archives