| 1 |
Alistair Bush wrote: |
| 2 |
> Richard Freeman wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Well, if the two bodies have the same constituency I can't see this |
| 4 |
>> being too likely to happen. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Why? There are plenty of examples within democracies of Governments |
| 7 |
> ignoring their constituency when passing law's etc. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Yes - and when this does happen - it tends to happen regardless of the |
| 11 |
checks and balances that are put into place. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Except that a fork doesn't limit the foundations powers, it just |
| 15 |
> influences the state of Gentoo after all the developers abandon it. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
If a majority of developers abandon Gentoo (a drastic outcome, I'll |
| 19 |
admit), I think we can all agree that the state of Gentoo will be far |
| 20 |
worse than it is now. This is something to be avoided, which in |
| 21 |
practice limits the foundation's powers, unless the foundation is more |
| 22 |
focused on proving a point than furthering Gentoo. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Really? You read the news don't you? Have learnt some history? Why do |
| 26 |
> you think most governments have Upper and Lower Houses? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
As a check and balance - but in the case of a government we're talking |
| 29 |
bodies that govern millions of people - not 100 or so. Also - in most |
| 30 |
cases the upper and lower houses tend to have the same constituencies |
| 31 |
(which is my whole point). Governments also have sources of revenue |
| 32 |
sufficient to fund their operation - they don't rely on volunteers to |
| 33 |
any large degree. That enables them to survive for quite a long time |
| 34 |
even when they are highly inefficient - if Gentoo were as well-run as a |
| 35 |
typical government I think most of us would find better places to devote |
| 36 |
our energy. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
> There is one |
| 39 |
> thing that I want to make clear. I don't want to overly formalise the |
| 40 |
> whole governance structure gentoo, but I also don't want it to be |
| 41 |
> ad-hoc. The one problem I see is that Conventions will never work |
| 42 |
> within an open-source org as developers will change them willy nilly to |
| 43 |
> prove a point. Therefore, I believe, we need some simple, easy to |
| 44 |
> follow rules. |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
No argument there. But keep in mind that the devs should drive the |
| 48 |
rules - not the other way around. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
>> Both groups have the needs of Gentoo at heart, and as a result |
| 51 |
>> neither can afford to start a war with the other... |
| 52 |
> |
| 53 |
> And yet that won't stop a war from happening. At least if both the |
| 54 |
> Foundation and the Council have the right to call elections then the |
| 55 |
> power rest firmly with those who vote. If for instance the Foundation |
| 56 |
> were to dismiss the Council against the wishes of the large dev |
| 57 |
> community I would expect the community to vote the Council members back |
| 58 |
> in and give the Foundation its marching orders. |
| 59 |
> |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
Again, that is fine - as long as both have the same constituency. If |
| 62 |
they have different constituencies then this could turn into a huge mess |
| 63 |
- as both groups would keep getting re-elected by their different |
| 64 |
constituencies, and the issues wouldn't actually get resolved. |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
My argument isn't really one of what the council/trustee's authority |
| 67 |
should be. My point is that for gentoo to be successful these groups |
| 68 |
need to work well together. We can't really afford for either group to |
| 69 |
discover a mandate to be an overseer to the other - it will just lead to |
| 70 |
a massive waste of resources that will only serve to weaken the distro. |
| 71 |
I don't think it is constructive when we dream up all kinds of |
| 72 |
scenarios where the two bodies can enter into open war against the other. |
| 73 |
-- |
| 74 |
gentoo-nfp@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives