Gentoo Archives: gentoo-nfp

From: Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk>
To: gentoo-nfp@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-nfp] Re: Re: Re: Foundation Nomination - Daniel Robbins
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 07:57:38
Chris Gianelloni wrote:

> On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 03:00 +0000, Steve Long wrote: >> > On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 00:49 +0000, Steve Long wrote: >> >> I'd also like to nominate patrick who runs, >> >> hosting amongst other things pkgcore (which cross-pollinates with >> >> portage) and notTheGWN: >> >> >> > >> > Yes, we definitely need people that were "retired" from the project to >> > run our legal entity. *roll eyes* >> > >> Hmm ok, only he was in the eligible list and has contributed an awful lot >> to Gentoo, but not really as a technical developer over the last year or >> two. More as a business analyst imo, although he's stepped up to provide >> infra for some of the more innovative work that goes on. > > He *is* eligible, but he was removed from the project. This really > needs to be taken into consideration. >
As a developer, when you keep insisting that they are very different roles.
>> > Has anybody even taken the time to stop and think about someone's >> > actual *legal* capabilities before nominating them? >> > >> I have actually, as I would hope my other nominations would show. Have >> you ever stopped to consider that maybe you're not the best judge of >> qualities you haven't exactly displayed? Or have I missed something and >> you have a pool of qualified lawyers lined up wanting to take on this >> *legal* job? > > How so? Do you have a clue what I have or have not done? Of course > not. Instead, you just feel the need to run your mouth like usual. > Please, continue with the ad hominum attacks. It really helps your > position. >
You amaze me: you lower the tone of the discourse with your belligerent comments, state I am "running my mouth as usual" and then wish to accuse me of "ad hominem." I took it as read that no-one was trying to state that the previous Trustees had stepped up to the plate. Anyone who's followed the history will have read many assertions about it not being something the devs were good at, nor would we want them to be. If you're maintaining that all was well with the Foundation, it's an interesting point-of-view.
>> > Seriously, technical achievement means *nothing* here. This is purely >> > a staff/financial/legal position we're nominating for... >> > >> Yeah that takes more than just *legal* capability. It also takes >> managerial ability, as well as business expertise, both of which Patrick >> possesses. OFC these are not skills especially prevalent in the >> /technical/ developer pool as the record of your time as Trustee shows. >> It's the same type of skills that drobbins would bring, were he eligible >> to stand. > > No, it really doesn't take any managerial capability. The trustees are > *not* managers.
So let's get this straight: Council and devs deal with the technical side (let's call this the software development) and Trustees deal with the "staff/financial/legal" matters. Anywhere else that would be called "organisational" matters, which would need managerial oversight.
> They do not tell anyone what to do, nor do they lead > the project in any way. The trustees are paper pushers. I'm sorry if > you don't realize that, but there's only so many times that it can be > said before it becomes obvious that you're either ignoring it, or too > dense to comprehend it. I'll let you decide which. >
See below, but thanks for showing the way to keep things civil. Just as feedback to improve this: if you had stopped at "paper pushers," perhaps adding "That's all there is to it," it would have made the point without lowering the tone.
>> I believe him to be the kind of person you want helping you manage the >> organisational side of things, which requires people who can empathise >> and motivate, not snipe and whinge at every opportunity. OFC, neither you >> nor anyone else has to vote for Patrick (assuming he'd even want to stand >> after being subject to the first personal attack in this process.) > > Yes, because his organizational skills at organizing FOSDEM for Gentoo > was excellent. In fact, his skills were so good that several developers > got left in the cold for over an hour, waiting for transportation that > Patrick had promised and which never arrived. How about the demo > machines that Patrick lined up for the show? Oh, that's right, SeJo, > pvdabeel, and myself had to do that the day of the show because Patrick > didn't do anything. >
Sounds like most of the chief executives I've come across, who are normally reliant on PAs to actually arrange anything. Thank you however for backing up your assertion with reasons: it would have been nice if you had stated this in the first place, instead of just rolling your eyes and expecting us to accept that ebuild developing had anything to do with the Trustees. He's still much better at motivation and empathising with his colleagues. I've seen him help and motivate loads of people, including some of your developers.
> Now, you can call it a personal attack if you wish. I hope that you > realize that I don't care what your opinion is on pretty much anything. > While I've been working to improve Gentoo, you sit on the sidelines and > tell everybody how poorly they're doing.
I think you have me confused with someone else.
> Well, step up or shut up.
What does that mean? Somehow becoming a developer on your team has never been very attractive. I've contributed various ebuilds, and helped other users where I can, as well as defending Gentoo as a project; must have missed your motivational seminars in #-dev-help over the last year. I stepped up to offer a fix for your bug that you stated was holding back the new release. Not sure what else you want from a user, especially one you take delight in baiting.
> Personal attacks are when one says something that is an attack on a > person or their character. Stating pertinent *facts* about a nominee > seems to me to be something that would be *wanted* but I see that we're > going to have some armchair developers out there screaming that it's a > personal attack just because it puts the person in a bad light. >
No, it was the "*rolls eyes*" and a snipe about someone's history as a developer disqualifying them as a Trustee, with no *facts* given which made it sound like a personal attack. Thank you for finally providing some attempt at reasoning, along with your usual ad hominem towards me.
> Sure, Patrick has contributed quite a bit via his gentooexperimental > project, but that doesn't change the *facts* of his time as a Gentoo > developer. >
I find it more cogent that he has contributed and maintained that infrastructure for innovation, as well as the huge amount of QA for the tree, as something other than a Gentoo dev. The last couple of months has shown that, while Gentoo is fine as a piece of software, as a project there is a serious disconnect with its user base. So it seems that where the project needs new thinking is not really on the technical development side. Perhaps the Trustees should have a wider remit than the one you envision as paper-pushers with a narrow *legal* remit. Although you mention staff relations, and financial matters as well, you seem to be unaware overseeing this requires managerial capability, along the lines drobbins has mentioned. It's not about being a lawyer, an accountant or an HR person: it's about managing them, with an overview of all three, and the impact it has on the people who make the product. Patrick, like drobbins, understands the developer culture. While the discussion may be moot, in that I don't think he wants to stand, the topics we have discussed are relevant: should the Trustees be strictly confined to dealing with legal matters? If so, who is to deal with the other areas, given that developers have enough to do maintaining the software? -- gentoo-nfp@l.g.o mailing list


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-nfp] Re: Re: Re: Foundation Nomination - Daniel Robbins Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o>