Re: [gentoo-nfp] drobbins, leadership, etc.

[Alec Warner]

On 1/16/08, John Alberts <john.m.alberts@×××××.com> wrote:
> > There was talk of a vote on -core.
> Unfortunately, it's completely private, so the community has no idea what is
> being discussed.  I think this is the real problem.  Lack of communication.
> Lack of transparency.  -core should at least be read only and archived for
> users to see what's going on.

I'm pretty sure there is a lot of talk here, a lot of talk on the
forums, on -project, and elsewhere.  I'm taking my time to try to
update you on what the goings on are.  If it wasn't on -core it would
be on a private IRC channel or in privmsg.  Sometimes you just need a
private space to hash out ideas.

>
> With the lack of communication and updates on the Gentoo front page and lack
> of GWN releases, and a missed 2007.1 release, users get the impression that
> nothing is happening and things must be declining.  Happy Gentoo users get

Yes and I worked hard to get news items on the front page and look,
there they are.
No news is good news, no? :)

> outraged because this wonderful distribution *seems* to be withering away
> because of the lack of transparency and communication.   When in fact, as
> many have pointed out, new and updated ebuilds are put in portage every day.
>  Lot's of devs are constantly at work in the background keeping things
> going, but there's a lack of people to keep the community informed properly.
>

Yes well as you noted writing news and project updates is boring and
so it doesn't get done.
Are you volunteering? :)

> I don't know any of the devs personally, and I'm not a dev, but I hate
> seeing some of these comments coming through putting all of this blame on
> the devs.  They are volunteers, doing what they enjoy, and they'll be doing
> it for as long as it makes him/her happy.
>
> I support bringing drobbins back because my hope is that he will help
> implement the needed direction and transparency that Gentoo needs to
> succeed; however, drobbins needs to elaborate on what his intentions are and
> how he plans to implement these changes before any decision is made.  I
> would hope that he joins this discussion to help provide a good solution for
> everyone.
>
> John Alberts
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 16, 2008 5:43 PM, Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> wrote:
> >
> > On 1/16/08, James Laslavic <squarebottle@×××××.com> wrote:
> >
> > > A lot of people are talking about how "There shouldn't just be one
> > > person!" Well, couple things.
> > >
> > > The biggest issue that these people have forgotten is that as it is
> > > right now, there is only one trustee. All the others have retired or
> > > been AWOL for a while now, and the same goes for the rest of the
> > > foundation, pretty much.
> >
> > If you assume no one is working on stuff you are wrong and there are
> > at least three folks actively working to figure out what our options
> > are (and there is me, annoying the hell out of them to make sure we
> > are making progress).
> >
> >
> > >
> > > And if being democratic is the big goal, then don't forget that the
> > > community overwhelmingly supports his return.
> >
> > You have provided no metric.  All I know is that a subset of folks
> > want him back.
> > (not that we are ignoring that subset, but that doesn't mean they
> > represent everyone).
> >
> >
> > >
> > > If you want to create a system of checks and balances, then great! Bring
> > > your ideas to the table when we have enough people showing up to pass
> > > this kind of legislation! But right now, we've got to face the facts:
> > >
> > > 1) Things are not getting done.
> > > 2) Gentoo is losing developers.
> > > 3) Potential developers are choosing not to join.
> >
> > 2 and 3 are both incorrect IMHO.  We don't have enough recruiters to
> > recruit all the folks that want to be devs; so that nixes 3.  I don't
> > have the numbers to refute 2 in front of me.
> >
> >
> > > 4) The current Gentoo foundation has had several months to fix all the
> > > above.
> >
> > Chris said he faxed paperwork to NM and that this was a surprise;
> > certainly I'm not happy with the progress made here and there are
> > folks who are working on it.
> >
> >
> > > 5) Daniel Robbins offering to come back is not happening out of the blue
> > > because "he feels like he wants power," but is happening in response to
> > > the dire situation painted by the above issues.
> > >
> > > There are developers who want to see him return, and there are
> > > developers that don't. This is normal. However, take a look at the
> > > numbers. The people that stayed when he left will likely consist of
> > > people that don't want to see him return because, after all, the reason
> > > they didn't leave with him is because they weren't on his side then. As
> > > such, it's not really very representative of anything, as any pollster
> > > or statistician can tell you. When you look at the entire Gentoo
> > > community though including all the developers that left back then and
> > > all the developers that do not want to join the current Gentoo, it
> > > overwhelmingly supports Daniel Robbins' return.
> >
> > Again, overwhelmingly is a strong term ;)
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I wish I could see some people be mature and say, "You know, I
> > > personally don't think this is the best idea, but the community seems to
> > > think it knows better, so I'm not going to try to block the whole
> > > community."
> >
> > I don't think many devs actually outright want to say no.  Most devs
> > want more concrete terms (and they are working on getting them from
> > Daniel).
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Also note that technically, Daniel Robbins already owns all the
> > > trademarks and stuff again because when the charter was revoked, all
> > > contracts and stuff (such as the transfer of rights) was legally
> > > nullified. He's pretty much just being polite by asking.
> >
> > It's false because as far as I'm aware the Foundation never owned any
> > trademarks and the copyrights for most code in it's present form is
> > still owned by the author (which is not Daniel for the vast majority
> > of code in the tree today).
> >
> >
> > >
> > > In any case, whatever you believe should happen, we can all agree that a
> > > decision must be reached somehow. Debate is healthy, but we need a way
> > > of officially deciding what will happen. Perhaps an organized election?
> > > I mean, how do you want to do this? It's got to be done sometime (unless
> > > you're trying to filibuster all this of course, which would just be
> lame).
> >
> > There was talk of a vote on -core.  I think the current decision is
> > that we need to investigate the alternatives before we can vote on
> > them; hence we are getting our paperwork in order to get advice from
> > our legal team.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > > Square Bottle
> > > www.visualflavor.org
> > >
> > >
> > > gibbonsr-ml@××××××××××××××××××.com wrote:
> > > > Why does one person have to be the Dictator.  We need a single
> governing
> > > > body, but `body` doesn't have to mean one person
> > > >
> > > > Have the council do what they do, manage the devs, but have the
> council
> > > > report the foudnation.  Foundation members should be assigned areas
> and
> > > > required to attend everything with area, basically a part of that
> > > > board.  So the council actually has one or two members in the
> > > > foundation, the userrel actually has one or two members in the
> > > > foundation.  They report to the overall group what is going on in
> gentoo.
> > > >
> > > > If Daniel wants the join the foundation / trustee's, then great, let
> him
> > > > do it from there with a team of people.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Senno During" <senno.during@×××××.com>
> > > > To: gentoo-nfp@l.g.o
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 4:44:33 PM (GMT-0600)
> America/Chicago
> > > > Subject: Re: [gentoo-nfp] drobbins, leadership, etc.
> > > >
> > > > this is my feeling too. So far drobbins has given an option. i have
> > > > heard good things about it, and bad things about it. Though, no
> > > > alternative is known to me. i hope to hear about one soon!
> > > >
> > > > i also believe there will always be devs/users (are pretty important
> > > > too i think!) that are not going to be happy with the choice that is
> > > > going to be made.
> > > >
> > > > i do feel that Gentoo, currently, needs a sort of dictator, like Linux
> > > > with Torvalds. Of course, you always hope for the right choice and
> right
> > > > ideas from the leader then. But no decisions being made by a group,
> just to
> > > > prevent a dictator style, doesn't sound right to me either.
> > > >
> > > > Senno During
> > > >
> > > > On Jan 16, 2008 11:09 PM, Sergey Kuleshov <svyatogor@×××××.com> wrote:
> > > >  > I'd second almost everything Caleb said. I do feel, that Daniel
> should
> > > >  > come back. And if he does I'll try to come back to the developers
> > > >  > (which I left some time ago). not that I think this will make any
> > > >  > difference, but just wanted to express my opinion as well.
> > > >  >
> > > >  > and when I hear peoples' concerns about handing him control of
> Gentoo,
> > > >  > I have only one question in return - any better options? cause what
> we
> > > >  > have now proved to be quite a failure.
> > > >  >
> > > >  >
> > > >  > On Jan 16, 2008 10:07 PM,
> <gibbonsr-ml@××××××××××××××××××.com> wrote:
> > > >  > > That WooHoo feeling seems to be held by most, Honestly at first i
> > > > was there
> > > >  > > also.
> > > >  > >
> > > >  > > But now that I've calmed down, and started reading through
> > > > everything I do
> > > >  > > not share the feeling.  Do I think Daniel can help? Yes.  Should
> we
> > > > accept
> > > >  > > his current offer by Friday? No.  Why?  Many reasons, some having
> > > > to do with
> > > >  > > the fact we just don't know enough.  Another one is he is wanted
> > > >  > > unquestionable control ... which is dangerous to give to anybody,
> > > > no matter
> > > >  > > how great the man once was.  Would we give JFK or Lincoln
> complete
> > > > control
> > > >  > > of the US, no checks, no balances .. no. (sorry to the non-us
> > > > citizens for
> > > >  > > that example, best I could come up with in such sort notice).
> > > >  > >
> > > >  > > I know Daniel can help, but I also believe anybody who is
> committed
> > > > enough
> > > >  > > can help.  Somebody needs to take this personal, and take it as a
> > > > part-time
> > > >  > > job and execute on actions, and be held accountable for what they
> > > > did or
> > > >  > > didn't do.
> > > >  > >
> > > >  > > The past is the past, both good and bad.  I think if Daniel would
> > > > sit down
> > > >  > > with the Foundation, trustee, council and even allow others to
> join and
> > > >  > > listen (not speak, but listen) and then hash out a set of
> > > > guidelines .. then
> > > >  > > great.  But we shouldn't accept him blindly and unconditionally
> at this
> > > >  > > point in time.  If Daniel doesn't want to sit down and talk this
> > > > out, then
> > > >  > > he doesn't need to be back.
> > > >  > >
> > > >  > >
> > > >  > >
> > > >  > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > >  > > From: "John Alberts" < john.m.alberts@×××××.com>
> > > >  > > To: "Caleb Cushing" <xenoterracide@×××××.com>
> > > >  > > Cc: gentoo-nfp@l.g.o
> > > >  > > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 3:54:00 PM (GMT-0600)
> America/Chicago
> > > >  > > Subject: Re: [gentoo-nfp] drobbins, leadership, etc.
> > > >  > >
> > > >  > > It might be prudent to back up your claims, conclusions, and
> > > > suggestion with
> > > >  > > some type of fact.  I'm not saying I disagree or agree with you,
> but
> > > >  > > basically, all you said was "WooHoo! Bring back Robbins!"
> > > >  > >
> > > >  > >  John Alberts
> > > >  > >
> > > >  > >
> > > >  > > On Jan 16, 2008 3:43 PM, Caleb Cushing <xenoterracide@×××××.com >
> wrote:
> > > >  > > > just joining the conversation. I vote to bring drobbins back.
> > > > Even though
> > > >  > > i as
> > > >  > > > a user/admin and potential future developer, have no vote.
> > > >  > > >
> > > >  > > > I would also like to note that under the current leadership, of
> > > > which I
> > > >  > > have
> > > >  > > > no confidence, I have no desire to be a gentoo developer. were
> this
> > > >  > > > leadership to change and with some more improvement of my own
> > > > skills I
> > > >  > > would
> > > >  > > > consider it. I of course do not believe this decision is based
> on
> > > > me, and
> > > >  > > am
> > > >  > > > not attempting to inflate my own worth. but am merely pointing
> > > > out that I
> > > >  > > may
> > > >  > > > not be the only person who feels this way.
> > > >  > > > --
> > > >  > > > Caleb Cushing
> > > >  > > >
> > > >  > > > PGP keys available on key server
> > > >  > > > wwwkeys.us.pgp.net
> > > >  > > >
> > > >  > > > Due to low Internet availability I may not check
> > > >  > > > my email more than once a week, and thus cannot
> > > >  > > > guarantee a response time.
> > > >  > > >
> > > >  > >
> > > >  > >
> > > >  > >
> > > >  > > --
> > > >  > > Ryan Gibbons
> > > >  > > 817.657.1780
> > > >  > > gibbonsr@××××××××××××××××××.com
> > > >  > >
> > > >  >
> > > >  >
> > > >  >
> > > >  > --
> > > >  > Sergey Kuleshov    < svyatogor@×××××.com>
> > > >  > Jabber: svyatogor@×××××.com
> > > >  > ICQ: 158439855
> > > >  > --
> > > >  > gentoo-nfp@l.g.o mailing list
> > > >  >
> > > >  >
> > > > --
> > > > gentoo-nfp@l.g.o mailing list
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Ryan Gibbons
> > > > 817.657.1780
> > > > gibbonsr@××××××××××××××××××.com
> > > --
> > > gentoo-nfp@l.g.o mailing list
> > >
> > >
> > --
> >
> >
> >
> > gentoo-nfp@l.g.o mailing list
> >
> >
>
>
-- 
gentoo-nfp@l.g.o mailing list