Re: [gentoo-nfp] [RFC] Alternative methods for determining 'interest in Foundation affairs'

[Alec Warner]

On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 1:35 PM Brad Teaford Cowan <bradly.cowan@×××××.com>
wrote:

> On Fri, 2019-09-06 at 17:48 +0100, Michael Everitt wrote:
> > On 06/09/19 15:36, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 06:51:00PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 6:42 PM Robin H. Johnson <
> > > > robbat2@g.o> wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 01:45:25PM -0700, Alec Warner wrote:
> > > > > > > 3. It is really meaningless.  Casting a vote does not
> > > > > > > really indicate
> > > > > > > any interest in GF.  It only indicates that someone has
> > > > > > > done the minimal
> > > > > > > effort to avoid being kicked.  There is no reason to
> > > > > > > conflate the two.
> > > > > > I'm certainly interested in other avenues of interest, but I
> > > > > > don't see very
> > > > > > many in this thread other than "AGM attendance" and "asking
> > > > > > people if they
> > > > > > are interested[0]"
> > > > > - Does involvement on mailing lists count?
> > > > > - What other ways outside development might somebody be
> > > > > involved in
> > > > >   Gentoo? Not everybody is a developer, let alone an ebuild
> > > > > developer.
> > > > >   What if we wound up with PR people who weren't devs at all,
> > > > > but loved
> > > > >   to talk about Gentoo?
> > > > Gentoo developers do not have to have commit access.  If somebody
> > > > is
> > > > doing significant PR work for Gentoo then they should be made a
> > > > developer.  Developers do not need to pass the ebuild quiz.
> > > I meant "developer" as the generic "one who develops software".
> > > Ebuilds are not the only code-like activity, there's multiple other
> > > software packages that Gentoo relies on: openrc, netifrc,
> > > genkernel,
> > > catalyst, eselect are some of them.
> > > They may have commit access to those packages, and not to ebuilds.
> > >
> > > I need to distinguish between:
> > > - ebuild coding contribution
> > > - non-ebuild-coding contribution
> > > - non-coding contribution
> > >
> > > > Anybody with an @g.o email address is a developer.
> > > >
> > > > We used to use the term "staff" but anybody who used to be
> > > > considered
> > > > "staff" is now considered a "developer."
> > > I stated when the switch away from "staff" was done, that I felt we
> > > were
> > > doing ourselves a dis-service by not picking a better word than
> > > "developer" - something that includes all of the contributions
> > > above,
> > > without implying specific technical skills. "Contributor" was down-
> > > voted
> > > at the time.
> > >
> > Reading (somewhat extensively) between the lines, there is a subtle
> > move
> > for those developing code and ebuilds to "take over" control and
> > management
> > of the distribution (cf. electorate of 'council'). Whether this is
> > something that is (1) really happening or (2) desirable, I shall
> > leave as
> > an exercise for the reader; but I thought was probably worth
> > highlighting.
> >
> >
> >
>   As a long time former dev, who went through the rough times that
> necessitated the formation of the foundation, I felt I needed to
> respond to these posts.  First of all, the foundation was formed in
> defense of the exact situation that Gentoo is facing now, as a control
> buffer keeping certain developers from literally taking over every
> aspect of the distro for their own gain. Whether that gain be money,
> power, or posturing for a job at Red Hat et al.  The foundation has
> systemically been weakened, preening membership by any means possible.
> Eventually we will be left with just those developers seeking these
> gains ie. umbrella. This directly puts Gentoo right back in harms way,
> the original position it was pre-foundation.
>
>   I lost my membership after missing a couple votes I assume, even
> though I had thought I was assured a lifetime seat being an original
> member. I know there are lots of other ex-developers out there who
> still love Gentoo at heart and deserve their right to protect its
> direction and IP from these threats from within. I personally think the
> foundation should be stengthened and more a separation from developer
> to foundation member. It's almost a conflict of interest or just asking
> for corruption to be in control of the foundation and the council.
> Anyway, now I'm rambling, so in closing, No changes unless they are to
> add and or strengthen foundation and not weaken it further. THANKS
>
>
>
So my response to this post is basically that we don't have enough people
interested in running the Foundation. The Foundation originally had 9 board
seats, then 7, then 5. The 5 are mostly filled with veterans (robin: joined
2003, me: joined 2006, prometheanfire: joined 2011) who don't want these
positions but feel they need to be filled by people who will actually
fulfill these duties. If the Foundation "needs to be strengthened" then we
need candidates actually willing to do these jobs well. In the past
election robin and I both resigned in an attempt to make space on the board
for new members. We had 1 additional person run and all of the incumbents
were re-elected to the board. This is a bad thing! The current board
doesn't want to run the Foundation, we tried to recruit new board members
and basically got 1 recruit, and the Foundation didn't elect them to the
board!

The minimum board size in New Mexico is 3; so technically its possible to
drop two seats and run a board that is [b-man, alicef, mgorny] and robin
and I and prometheanfire can all resign. But in the end I think we will
face similar problems; there just are not enough humans left who care to do
this job. Strengthening the Foundation means finding humans who are willing
to do this long term and most people are not. The people who want the
umbrella are not "seeking power" (I want the umbrella and I'm the board
president!) we want it because we think the umbrella will do at worst, the
same job we have done and at best, do a better job.

-A