Gentoo Archives: gentoo-nfp

From: "William L. Thomson Jr." <wltjr@g.o>
To: gentoo-nfp <gentoo-nfp@l.g.o>
Subject: Re: Foundation existence and behavior (Was: [gentoo-nfp] Section 4.1 Member Classes)
Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 15:47:20
Message-Id: 1211730433.365.26.camel@wlt.obsidian-studios.com
In Reply to: Re: Foundation existence and behavior (Was: [gentoo-nfp] Section 4.1 Member Classes) by Richard Freeman
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

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies