1 |
On Sun, 2008-05-25 at 08:09 -0400, Richard Freeman wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> Look, let's be realistic. We're not Red Hat. We will probably never be |
4 |
> Red Hat. I'm not entirely sure we want to be Red Hat. Having a booth |
5 |
> at an event is a far cry from hosting one, and the politics in an |
6 |
> organization that can field those kinds of resources would totally |
7 |
> change the character of Gentoo. |
8 |
|
9 |
http://www.debian.org/events/2008/0810-debconf |
10 |
|
11 |
|
12 |
> I think the point is that we'd like to preserve the small-organization |
13 |
> atmosphere as much as possible. |
14 |
|
15 |
Guess we should stop recruiting then? |
16 |
|
17 |
> Yes, reality is going to dictate some |
18 |
> compromises there, but I think most Gentoo devs would rather see a |
19 |
> Gentoo that looks more like FFmpeg than the Red Cross. |
20 |
|
21 |
What is the size of the FFmpeg project compared to Gentoo? |
22 |
|
23 |
> Honestly, I think staying humble helps keep us honest. If we wanted to |
24 |
> be self-sufficient at commercial infrastructure rates the cost could |
25 |
> easily be $10k per month with no payroll - and that is using some of |
26 |
> your own estimates from this email. Once you start having serious cash |
27 |
> flow you get all the politics that go with it. |
28 |
|
29 |
BSD and others don't have a problem. $10k a month, $120k a year. |
30 |
FreeBSD's budget and goal for 08 is $300k. They have $400k now according |
31 |
to their last P & L report. |
32 |
|
33 |
> I've seen it commented on other forums during some of the past problems |
34 |
> that we can't afford to lose Gentoo - it offers something truly |
35 |
> interesting and unique. If we lose a CVS server it will most likely |
36 |
> have plenty of notice, and somebody will step up to meet the need, or we |
37 |
> could always have a paypal support drive to tide us over in the meantime. |
38 |
|
39 |
And the mean time, while we have no CVS server what happens? What it |
40 |
takes days, weeks, or etc to find a sponsor. Again if people aren't |
41 |
stepping up for minor things. What makes you so confident they will go |
42 |
for major ones? |
43 |
|
44 |
> However, I don't think that non-dev Foundation membership is going to |
45 |
> accomplish this. I think that it has real potential to put two groups |
46 |
> with different constituencies at the helm of Gentoo and in serious |
47 |
> conflict. Just look at the discussion here! |
48 |
|
49 |
Discussion != conflict, and we still only have a handful commenting. Not |
50 |
a substantial percentage or outrage. Plus we have to heads now, this is |
51 |
just getting those head to work with each other, in a organized manner. |
52 |
Not a power struggle etc. |
53 |
|
54 |
|
55 |
> Gentoo does need to be more responsive to users. However, the way to |
56 |
> accomplish that is to appeal to devs collective good natures - not to |
57 |
> threaten to cut off their cvs access because it is running on Gentoo |
58 |
> Foundation property. |
59 |
|
60 |
That is so ridiculous I am not even going to address it. |
61 |
|
62 |
> When a dev just is totally out of line, appeal to |
63 |
> the broader dev community to police itself, which has been happing over |
64 |
> the last year or so with far greater success than in the past (even if |
65 |
> we do have some rough bumps like we've had in the most recent council |
66 |
> meeting). |
67 |
|
68 |
No one is discussing or mentioning anything of the sort. |
69 |
|
70 |
|
71 |
> Hey - I for one appreciate what you're doing with the Foundation. I |
72 |
> think we do need the Foundation, but we need to be careful about its |
73 |
> role. I think that Gentoo needs to have a single voice and direction, |
74 |
> and having two very powerful boards with different constituencies is |
75 |
> likely to cause trouble. |
76 |
|
77 |
Only if their missions, powers, duties, etc are not carefully thought |
78 |
out and written into the bylaws as operating procedures. |
79 |
|
80 |
> > |
81 |
> >> Again what the council received as proposal could be interpreted in a |
82 |
> >> quite grim way. |
83 |
> > |
84 |
> > That's for the new council to decide. If one is ever elected. |
85 |
> |
86 |
> Uh, that isn't your call to make. In fact, you should probably be |
87 |
> careful as a trustee to state an opinion here as anything other than |
88 |
> your own personal opinion (granted, shared by others). |
89 |
|
90 |
Who says I am not stating my opinion? Did I say we the foundation, or we |
91 |
the board of trustees. No, thus I am only speaking my opinions. I can |
92 |
see where it could get confusing, but I wear 3 hats, user, developer, |
93 |
and trustee. |
94 |
|
95 |
> I really don't |
96 |
> like the trend I've seen lately where the Foundation is looking to hold |
97 |
> the Council accountable for its actions. |
98 |
|
99 |
Where is that being discussed? Let's just jump to conclusions. |
100 |
|
101 |
> The folks who should be |
102 |
> holding the Council accountable are the devs - collectively. |
103 |
|
104 |
Great, and GLEP 39 is? |
105 |
|
106 |
> I've |
107 |
> stated my personal opinion on this matter, as have many others. Based |
108 |
> on the recent -council mailing list postings I'm sure the council will |
109 |
> find and enact some reasonable solution, which might include elections. |
110 |
|
111 |
Still waiting, guess we will find out in ~30 days. Which I think we are |
112 |
half way into that. |
113 |
|
114 |
> And until elections are held, the current council is still the council. |
115 |
> Granted, any council is free to change policies enacted by the former. |
116 |
> The folks on the current council strike me as having good sense - |
117 |
> they're not flying off the handle issuing proclamations when it is wiser |
118 |
> to see what the consensus is and move in that direction. |
119 |
|
120 |
What do you think threads like this exist for? To enact my will or to |
121 |
get a general feel for the consensus. |
122 |
|
123 |
> Ok, so let's set up mirrors for some of the more critical services with |
124 |
> different sponsors. I think that is a better solution than having $100k |
125 |
> in the bank. |
126 |
|
127 |
So you are going to find us some new sponsors? Or you want our existing |
128 |
sponsors to provide more. So we can mirror critical stuff. Let's put out |
129 |
a call for help there and see how long it takes to get responded to. |
130 |
|
131 |
|
132 |
> Uh, the Foundation legally has quite a bit of power already. |
133 |
|
134 |
Which if you see my comments, I plan to strip allot of that power. Like |
135 |
removing Articles |
136 |
|
137 |
Section 5.3. Compensation. |
138 |
Section 6.3. Project Management Committees |
139 |
Section 6.7. Compensation. |
140 |
|
141 |
> Legally it |
142 |
> owns any Gentoo-owned assets. Right now that is a bit limited by the |
143 |
> fact that most of our gear is owned by sponsors. If we actually do |
144 |
> build out our infrastructure in the way you suggest then the Foundation |
145 |
> will have a great deal of power. |
146 |
|
147 |
Which any power the foundation has will be put to use for good purposes |
148 |
not evil. |
149 |
|
150 |
> Much of your argument has been around what happens if some random |
151 |
> sponsor pulls the plug. |
152 |
|
153 |
This almost happened FYI, but not because of anything to do with Gentoo. |
154 |
Understand that. I am not making up hypothetical situations to get |
155 |
people riled up. |
156 |
|
157 |
> Right now that means we have to scramble to get |
158 |
> some portion of gentoo running elsewhere. Now, the counterargument is |
159 |
> what happens if there is some major rift and the Foundation decides to |
160 |
> force some distasteful change? |
161 |
|
162 |
Um, no that is your counter argument. Nothing like that is even being |
163 |
proposed. However if you feel there is room for issues there. Clarify |
164 |
duties and power of each in bylaws. End of issue. |
165 |
|
166 |
> Now every asset of any kind needed by |
167 |
> Gentoo - including the name - is gone and basically the devs need to go |
168 |
> elsewhere and start over. |
169 |
|
170 |
You should sell insurance, this is craziness. |
171 |
|
172 |
> I think that the Foundation is best kept as a simple organization that |
173 |
> meets a legal requirement and which is accountable to the same devs as |
174 |
> the council. |
175 |
|
176 |
Yes, because when their are voids the project. The council does so well |
177 |
to see they are filled or addressed. There are many things the council |
178 |
could take a stance on. But does not and dumps else where or doesn't |
179 |
address at all. That said there are many things the council does very |
180 |
well. |
181 |
|
182 |
> In an ideal world I'd actually prefer that the Council and |
183 |
> Foundation be the same body, but I don't think this is practical as it |
184 |
> would require the Council to meet many legal standards in its various |
185 |
> actions that are likely to cause delays in decision-making, and finding |
186 |
> good volunteers to fill both roles might be difficult. |
187 |
|
188 |
A unified single foundation/body is sort of what I am proposing. Better |
189 |
organization for the one Gentoo. Not a two headed snake. But two groups |
190 |
with different agendas, duties, missions, powers, etc. Doing their |
191 |
thing, bug together in a more unified fashion. |
192 |
|
193 |
> |
194 |
> Isn't this last bit the whole point of this discussion? It is really |
195 |
> easy for me as somebody who doesn't do much on the Foundation to nitpick |
196 |
> things you are doing. You resent this, because my opinions aren't |
197 |
> backed up by willingness to back up words with help. |
198 |
|
199 |
How would you feel if all this was a discussion about a package you |
200 |
maintain? |
201 |
|
202 |
> And yet, your |
203 |
> proposal is to have Gentoo controlled primarily by users who are in this |
204 |
> exact situation. |
205 |
|
206 |
Via voting. Which requires a majority to enact anything. |
207 |
|
208 |
> Do you think that developers are going to appreciate |
209 |
> having to deal with a foundation that is happy to make demands and throw |
210 |
> money at problems, but not to actually do the work? |
211 |
|
212 |
Who is saying anything about the foundation demanding anything? It would |
213 |
ask, request, or suggest at best. |
214 |
|
215 |
> Most of us have day |
216 |
> jobs involving this kind of attitude - I suspect that many contribute to |
217 |
> Gentoo precisely because it DOESN'T work this way. |
218 |
|
219 |
No one is looking to change that aspect. To much paranoia, not enough |
220 |
faith in the fellow Gentoo developer/user. Doesn't speak to highly of |
221 |
our community as a whole. |
222 |
|
223 |
> I really do want to do whatever I can to help make the Foundation run |
224 |
> smoothly and not be a burden to those running it. That is why I |
225 |
> advocate having the Foundation keep to the very basics. It should hold |
226 |
> trademark and tangible assets since we need some legal body to do this. |
227 |
|
228 |
The foundation has been a failure. No one in interested in that stuff. |
229 |
Thus we went from 13, down to 5, and no election in 07. |
230 |
|
231 |
> If all it does is hold an election and annual meeting and file |
232 |
> paperwork once a year I think it will have accomplished much of its |
233 |
> purpose. If the Foundation can do more that is great, but it shouldn't |
234 |
> become the rudder for the distro. |
235 |
|
236 |
Again, the foundation was created and established for things other than |
237 |
what it has become. |
238 |
|
239 |
> The Foundation must remain accountable to developers. |
240 |
|
241 |
Who are foundation members by default, entitled to vote or have their |
242 |
say on any foundational matters. |
243 |
|
244 |
> Anything else is |
245 |
> reasonably likely to lead to a long-term schism. Yes, I am sympathetic |
246 |
> to the fact that not many devs want to step up and help with the |
247 |
> Foundation. |
248 |
|
249 |
That is a major problem year after year. |
250 |
|
251 |
> However, that can't be allowed to give the Foundation the |
252 |
> power to set off in a different direction contrary to the will of most |
253 |
> developers (which granted, hasn't really been measured). |
254 |
|
255 |
Yes, so let's assume we know what the collective will is without |
256 |
polling. |
257 |
|
258 |
> The solution |
259 |
> to many of Gentoo's problems is to get devs to listen more to the needs |
260 |
> of their users - because it is the right thing to do. |
261 |
|
262 |
Ok, and how is that being addressed? It's one thing to identify a |
263 |
problem, it's quite another to propose solutions. |
264 |
|
265 |
> Twisting arms is |
266 |
> more likely to cause resentment than solve problems - as least in most |
267 |
> cases. |
268 |
|
269 |
Again taking things to extremes, negative rather than positive. |
270 |
|
271 |
-- |
272 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |
273 |
amd64/Java/Trustees |
274 |
Gentoo Foundation |