Gentoo Archives: gentoo-nfp

From: Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o>
To: gentoo-nfp@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-nfp] Summary of NFP options
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 20:54:11
Message-Id: 200404142254.05328.pauldv@gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-nfp] Summary of NFP options by Koon
1 On Wednesday 14 April 2004 16:28, Koon wrote:
2 > As a new Gentoo developer but with a little experience of management of
3 > open projects, here is my opinion on the subject.
4 >
5 >
6 > 1- On NFP
7 > ---------
8 >
9 > I was still recently a member of Gentoo user base, and I think what the
10 > user base wants is be sure Gentoo will be there tomorrow and will be
11 > free (as in beer and as in freedom). The average user probably also
12 > wants to have more leverage on the direction it's heading. The developer
13 > wants to make sure his work will not be stolen by a dark corporate
14 > conspiracy and will remain free.
15 >
16 > My experience shows that true democracy in open projects is not viable.
17 > When truly implemented, it's an illusion or/and a innovation killer.
18 > Resources are limited, choices must be made, conflicts must be resolved,
19 > someone must have final word. Management is a vertical thing, not an
20 > horizontal one. There must be a benevolent dictator or a small group of
21 > managers. That doesn't seem right, but it's the only effective way. What
22 > if the manager(s) does not follow the will of the community ? What if he
23 > becomes a bad dictator, oppressing his people ? The open source
24 > ecosystem has its answer : the project can be forked. The current lead
25 > should do his best to avoid that, change his views, step down and let
26 > another lead take over. But there always is this ultimate solution. It's
27 > a painful process but ultimately the community will choose. They will
28 > vote with their feet.
29 >
30 > So I think the best is a closed model. Since it's more or less the way
31 > it works for now, I think the community can accept it. As long as the
32 > the main goal ('forever free') is clearly built-in.
33 >
34 > A lot of devs are here because they love Gentoo's way : technical
35 > issues, not political issues. A lot of devs will leave (and are leaving)
36 > if political issues take over. It's the midlife management crisis for
37 > the Gentoo project, we won't go through unaffected. But hopefully we
38 > will go through stronger and more effective.
39
40 One of the crises of growth, take any organization book and they are in there.
41 But indeed hopefully we will grow stronger and find our own, gentoo,
42 solution.
43
44 >
45 > Gentoo is a lot of things. To ensure that the open source ecosystem can
46 > be applied to it, we must consider them separately. Each could have its
47 > own lead and fork possibility :
48 >
49 > - Gentoo is portage
50 > The portage technology is the core of the Gentoo system. It's difficult
51 > to change without changing the ebuild tree, but could be changed.
52 >
53 > - Gentoo is a tree of packages using portage
54 > The official portage tree with its arches, ebuilds, stable keywords.
55 > Alternative/additional portage trees can exist.
56 >
57 > - Gentoo is a distribution using the portage tree
58 > A distribution is a little more than a package tree : it has releases,
59 > security updates, installation ISOs, a mirror network... Closely related
60 > to the precedent, but could be separated from it.
61 >
62 > - Gentoo is a helpful community using the distribution
63 > The forums and the mailing-lists are also what makes Gentoo a success. A
64 > lot of users of others distributions find the Gentoo forums more useful
65 > than their own dist forums. A fork at community level is probably not
66 > possible.
67 >
68 > Should a single NFP cover the whole thing ? Or should you have a portage
69 > open source project, a tree+distribution NFP, and a community with its
70 > own hierarchy of moderators ?
71
72 For me, gentoo is a philosophy. It is a way of handling problems, it is a way
73 of having optimal choice. For me the combination of the features, including
74 the openness of the comunity makes gentoo what it is. This gave me the desire
75 to be part of it. As such I don't think that they can be separated.
76
77 >
78 >
79 > 3- on Coop
80 > ----------
81 >
82 > I think the coop idea is very interesting and innovative. But I also
83 > think it can easily be separated from the NFP/Management issues. The
84 > coop(s) decide where money is spent. The university-driven coop(s) can
85 > fund a particular developer if they want his particular work to advance
86 > full-time. The coop(s) don't have to have the same lead as the NFP(s).
87 > If they don't like the way it goes, they can just cut the money flow and
88 > induce a fork by funding a parallel project. Vote using their wallet.
89
90 I like the idea too. It makes a lot of sense, but the coop should be a
91 separate entity. It should have it's own goals and policies. While the coop
92 ("oss support foundation") would be an important source of income for the NFP
93 "gentoo foundation" should be created as soon as possible as grinding out the
94 goals and policies of the coop will probably still take quite a while.
95
96 >
97 >
98 > Conclusion
99 > ----------
100 >
101 > I think we can have a global solution with a distribution (under one or
102 > several NFP projects with closed leadership), a community not directly
103 > depending on the distribution (that can choose with their feet between
104 > forks) and separate coop(s) (that can influence where it goes by using
105 > its money). I think I rephrase what klieber already said, but I like to
106 > be verbose, despite my bad English :)
107
108 I'm not a native English speaker, but I don't think your English is bad at
109 all. Besides that, I actually agree with your points, they make a lot of
110 sense.
111
112 Paul
113
114 --
115 Paul de Vrieze
116 Gentoo Developer
117 Mail: pauldv@g.o
118 Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

Replies

Subject Author
RE: [gentoo-nfp] Summary of NFP options Daniel Robbins <drobbins@g.o>