Re: [gentoo-project] Merging Trustees and Council / Developers and Foundation - 1.0 reply

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

On Wednesday, January 11, 2017 5:50:50 PM EST Michał Górny wrote:
>
> And how is that not discriminating? On one hand you talk of giving
> people outside the project the means to influence it, yet you
> explicitly take away the right of voting for people outside
> the Foundation (even though they are in the project, after all).

If as a Developer  you opt out of Foundation membership. You cannot turn 
around and claim discrimination to something you chose to leave.

> I'm not sure if you've seen that but Gentoo developers lately have been
> harassed by multiple users who had no to minor contributions yet
> believed they are the best people to tell developers how do their work.

Which is why they would be better served to voice their opinions to Trustees. 
Let Trustees approach council if they feel it is best. If Council feels the 
need they could consult Developers.
 
> Accepting input is one thing. Letting people who do not do current
> Gentoo work (= aren't affected by the decisions directly) decide on
> what others should do is another.

Just because Foundation, Council, and Gentoo project want to do something. 
Does not mean YOU have to do that. At the same time a project should not be 
just left up to those scratching itches. If by some means all that individual 
itch scratching leads to something collectively great.

At some point has to be some big picture to how all the stuff fits together.
Are we a organized team/project or just individuals doing what ever?

> How can a user who has barely any contact with Gentoo developers be
> able to choose good candidates for the Council?

Users would never have ability to vote for Council. Foundation members can 
only vote for Foundation stuff. Which Council voting would be left to 
Developers.

> I don't see how either of those arguments are related to me being
> a Foundation member or not. After all, the Foundation protects *all*
> Gentoo work, independently of whether a developer doing it is a member
> or not, doesn't it?

So the Foundation and Trustees should be legally liable for all your actions 
without any influence?

You can do what ever you want and we will be liable for your actions. Do you 
want to be liable for all my actions. That is asking way to much of a Trustee 
IMHO. Be 100% responsible and legally liable with no influence.
 
 
> I don't see a strict reason to do that, nor I see a strict reason not
> to do that. Just pointing out that lawfully membership could be
> considered fully irrelevant.

Sure and By Laws can be revised and policies enacted to address any such 
issues, if needed.

>
> > It could be best, but could also result in a insiders only club.
>
> Excuse me but how is the Foundation membership different? Foundation
> members still have to be approved by Trustees.

Not if Foundation members are only developers. There would be no approval as 
every Developer would have automatic membership till opt out.

Foundation membership approval would come from outsiders/contributors. Making 
their case to the Trustees why they should be a member in the Gentoo 
foundation and able to vote.
 
> They can get recruited. It's not hard. Getting a developer status
> (without commit access) mostly involves proving that you're accustomed
> to organization matters of how Gentoo operates.

There are many in the community who either cannot or do not want to be come 
Developers in any capacity. Just the same as those who do not want to be 
members in the Foundation.

> Do you really think Gentoo users should start telling developers how
> Gentoo should be operating without learning how it's operating right
> now first?

No, but how Gentoo operates today may not be how it always has or always 
should. Gentoo is about choice, and should not exclude input from the 
community.

Gentoo Developers do not know everything about Gentoo. There are many outside 
of Gentoo who may know more technically and about the project organization 
etc. Do not assume you are a expert or guru because you are a Developer, and 
another is not because they are part of the community.

Who is to say Developers even know what is best, without considering others 
perspectives.

> No. But it means that I'm no longer in position to tell others what to
> do, or vote who the best candidate for Council/Trustee/etc. is.

Would you not have any wisdom from your experience to share with others?
 
> I don't mind past contributors having advisory roles for Gentoo. I do
> mind having them vote on people when they no longer are interested in
> directly participating in the complete developer community.

Which is all they could do in being a member of the Foundation. Sure the 
community could have more votes than developers. That is where Trustees 
present such ideas to Council, on behalf of the community.
 
> I believe the legal liability concern is a rare enough issue for
> Trustees to be involved rather when that is a possible case rather than
> having them approve every step of everyone else.

True, but just because no one has sued does not mean the project should not be 
aware of such liabilities and seek to protect itself from law suit.


> Yes, I know that they can. And they also know that by doing this they
> are going to lose many useful contributors. Gentoo can't exist without
> people doing the work, even if the common mailing list complainers
> finally get what they wanted and are satisfied.

Gentoo will not exist if it loses it community. Developers come from the 
community. It took a few to start the project, but many to grow it. Those many 
came from the community.

Like any business, it is not the employees that matter but the customers. Sure 
they business cannot run without employees, but without customers, there is no 
business. Thus without a community to use the stuff, there is no Gentoo.

Lots of software out there no one uses.
 
> It's not perfect but I believe Gentoo could prevail. Maybe it'd even be
> beneficial long-term, since it would let the developers actually doing
> a lot of work to split from those who mostly talk. Pretty much getting
> Gentoo back to the roots, as Daniel Robbins seen it.

That is not how Daniel sees it, and does not agree with such separation. That 
is what people need to understand. What Gentoo has become it was not intended 
to be, nor did it start that way.

> Of course, there's the trademark issue. It could end up in the 'FFmpeg
> fiasco' where actual development would continue in a separate entity,
> and Gentoo Foundation would just 'steal' their work and publish it as
> the official Gentoo.

There could be lots of issues, why it is best for all to work together. Not 
create separate entities or potential division within the project. But 
mechanisms to help keep it together by working together.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.