1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
3 |
|
4 |
Richard Freeman wrote: |
5 |
| I was thinking a little of some of pros/cons of how Gentoo is organized, |
6 |
| and maybe a few steps would help to improve it a little. I'd consider |
7 |
| this really to just be an item for discussion in terms of longer-term |
8 |
| goals - not something that we should try to institute as a knee-jerk |
9 |
| response to the current GLEP 39 debate. |
10 |
... |
11 |
| So, how do I propose to help sort these issues out? Well, I was |
12 |
| thinking that we don't need to revolutionize the current process, |
13 |
| because I think the current process largely works. However, I do |
14 |
| propose a few changes: |
15 |
| |
16 |
| 1. The council should be able to appoint a leader from its own ranks |
17 |
| (and a backup). This role would be like a prime minister in most |
18 |
| parliamentary democracies. They are really just a figurehead/spokesman, |
19 |
| but they are at least a go-to person who can claim to speak for the |
20 |
| council. They can make decisions autonomously, but all binding |
21 |
| decisions must be ratified by the council. They can be appointed and |
22 |
| de-appointed as needed and rotations could also be used (perhaps |
23 |
| rotating somebody in to the backup role first and then onto the lead |
24 |
role). |
25 |
| |
26 |
|
27 |
I don't think our current problem was caused by not having a "council |
28 |
leader". Also, current policy already states that 2 council members can |
29 |
make a decision on urgent matters that needs to be ratified by the full |
30 |
council at their next meeting. |
31 |
|
32 |
| 2. The council would be the leaders of the distro with respect to all |
33 |
| issues that don't involve anything that is legally Gentoo Foundation |
34 |
| property. |
35 |
|
36 |
You're voicing the view that the Foundation should be nothing more than |
37 |
a holder for IP and assets. That is not what it was created for, nor |
38 |
should it be limited to that, imo. Also, you're changing the focus of |
39 |
the council as it was created as a technical body that would steer the |
40 |
technical advancement of the distro. |
41 |
|
42 |
| I also want to comment that I don't want to see these two bodies in |
43 |
| conflict - neither has the role of being the voice of the "community" in |
44 |
| a way that the other does not. If we get into a mode where we have two |
45 |
| leadership bodies in conflict I think it will be a net loss for Gentoo - |
46 |
| we can't function if we have the Foundation repossessing hardware, and |
47 |
| we can't function if devs start quitting because they feel like they're |
48 |
| being treated as subservient to the "community". |
49 |
|
50 |
I agree that we don't want to have the Council and the Trustees fighting |
51 |
~ over who "rules" gentoo. However, they have a different membership. The |
52 |
council is elected by *all* devs. The foundation has a list of members |
53 |
[1] and a set of rules that currently stipulates that only devs that |
54 |
have been around for one year and that vote for a foundation election |
55 |
become members. So we have ex-devs that are foundation members and we |
56 |
have many current devs that are not members of the foundation. There are |
57 |
also plans to open membership to the foundation to accept members of the |
58 |
community, be them users, companies, sponsors, partners or any |
59 |
interested party. |
60 |
In that sense, the council would represent the developer "community", |
61 |
whilst the foundation would represent the "community" at large. |
62 |
|
63 |
[1] - |
64 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~jmbsvicetto/trustees-election/200803-foundation-members |
65 |
|
66 |
| 3. Council will meet monthly, but any slacker policies will be at its |
67 |
| own discretion. |
68 |
|
69 |
I wasn't around the time the council was created, but from the mails |
70 |
those that were sent, it was a "conscious" choice and option from the |
71 |
developer community to set those in. |
72 |
|
73 |
| 4. Any developer may follow the following procedure to hold a |
74 |
| referendum on any issue that will be binding on Gentoo (but not the |
75 |
| Foundation): |
76 |
| |
77 |
| a. Create a petition containing a clear resolution with voting options |
78 |
| (which must include an option to abstain and an option to decline the |
79 |
| resolution). |
80 |
| |
81 |
| b. Collect gpg signatures from developers/staff. The requisite number |
82 |
| of signatures is 10% of the number devs who made commits in the last 30 |
83 |
| days. Note that the count of devs making commits is used ONLY to |
84 |
| determine the number of sigs needed - any devs/staff can provide sigs |
85 |
| regardless of their role or level of activity as long as they haven't |
86 |
| been retired/booted. |
87 |
|
88 |
If your purpose it to count only active devs for the number of sigs |
89 |
needed, you need a better method. You're leaving out (or run the chance |
90 |
of leaving out) all staff from that count. It might be better to |
91 |
subtract to the total number of devs, the total that shows up in the |
92 |
slacker script. |
93 |
|
94 |
| c. Submit petition to council@g.o. The council will post the petition |
95 |
| on -dev-announce (or -core if the petition so indicates) and allow two |
96 |
| weeks for debate and two weeks for voting. |
97 |
| |
98 |
| Note that the referendum process is intended to be rare (maybe the |
99 |
| threshold should be 20% or more). It could be used to impeach council |
100 |
| members, make a decision, etc. The council would be bound to execute |
101 |
| the decision as best they are able. If the council doesn't do a good |
102 |
| job they could be impeached/etc - I think that is the best we can do |
103 |
| since ultimately we're depending on humans to do the right thing, and |
104 |
| the last thing we want is multiple councils with checks and balances and |
105 |
| more debate than action any time we want to do something. |
106 |
|
107 |
Although this process is somewhat lengthy and complex, we might need to |
108 |
have a provision for it - for extraordinary circumstances. |
109 |
If we try to institute it, we'll need to review a few clauses, though. |
110 |
|
111 |
- -- |
112 |
Regards, |
113 |
|
114 |
Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org |
115 |
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / SPARC / KDE |
116 |
|
117 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
118 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) |
119 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org |
120 |
|
121 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkgyolUACgkQcAWygvVEyAJAnQCdE0/LVLn6bOd+o+QzHGSy/dZ9 |
122 |
LJEAmQH2e3R28tw15U52HZ+m7fvG+VbU |
123 |
=e6Az |
124 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
125 |
-- |
126 |
gentoo-project@l.g.o mailing list |