Re: [gentoo-nfp] Agenda item: Formalize Gentoo's org structure

[Matthew Thode]

On 18-04-09 09:23:17, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 9:01 AM, Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> wrote:
> >
> > Would you change GLEP 39 here and get a vote of the developer-base to change
> > the metastructure?
> >
>
> IMO if we ever do get around to figuring out what the contributors to
> Gentoo actually want, we should probably give them more than a yes/no
> option.  We use condorcet voting - it costs us nothing to give people
> as many options as people care to define, because there is no
> strategic voting advantage to diluting options with condorcet as long
> as the ballot doesn't get so long that people can't even rank it.
>
> I'd suggest doing that BEFORE spending a ton of effort refining
> things.  Maybe ask people where they want things to go in a
> non-binding way, at at least look at the top few candidates.
>
> Then go ahead and refine the proposed path forward (hopefully with
> both Council/Trustee backing, but if they want to propose separate
> options they could), and then put that up for a binding vote.
>
> If we think this is a good idea I'd suggest that we just let people
> write up proposals on the wiki (anybody can write one or more
> proposals as long as at least one dev or foundation member backs it -
> if there is abuse then limit to one each), then these get copied to
> locked-down pages prior to voting, and each proposal is assigned a
> unique ID for the ballot.  Voting starts, people can discuss or try to
> sway votes on the lists, and then we get the ranked tally.  This would
> be non-binding and could be used by Council/Trustees/others as useful
> feedback so that at least we're not all waving our hands in the air
> about what "everybody" wants.
>
> We would still have to settle who gets to vote.  IMO it should just be
> devs, but honestly the number of non-dev Foundation members isn't that
> large at present and it probably wouldn't change the outcome (keeping
> things this way is important, because if we ever do end up in a
> situation where the two bodies want to go in different directions we
> have an even bigger mess).
>

A more 'positive' aclimation from the community (devs and non-dev
foundation members) would be nice.  I'd be good if there was some sort
of forum where voters can ask questions of each proposal as well.

I'd love to generally follow GLEP 39, but can't make promises because
GLEP 39 only apply to the org strucure at or below the level of Council.
At least that's how I see it working at this point.

-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)