| 1 |
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 6:16 PM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> The only comment I have right now... |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> What if project leads were generally left in charge to run their projects |
| 7 |
> as they see fit, but the gentoo developer community as a whole reserved the |
| 8 |
> right to recall the lead if they don't like how the project is being |
| 9 |
> managed? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> This would help with stagnant projects or the like or projects (such as |
| 12 |
> the recent fight between games and council) that aren't responsive to the |
| 13 |
> needs of the gentoo community. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> I like democracy, but who should the voters be? |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
Well, that is, to me, a large part of the problem. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
The social/political structure of Gentoo is based on a status of |
| 21 |
being an "accredited developer." Meaning that there are hoops to jump |
| 22 |
through to prove that one has a sufficiently advanced technical |
| 23 |
ability, and an ability to work within the rules. This restriction on |
| 24 |
who gets a vote or not makes the situation into one of conservative |
| 25 |
vs. progressive: restricted voting rights are associated with corporate |
| 26 |
cultures that are inherently conservative. They are often more concerned |
| 27 |
with maintaining a "status quo" than in moving forward. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
This is *exactly* what and why these conversations are taking place |
| 30 |
here and now. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
G.Wolfe Woodbury |
| 35 |
redwolfe@×××××.com |
Archives