Re: [gentoo-project] Social Contract clean-up

[Daniel Robbins]

Hey Seemant! :)

OK, that was a snarky reply to something I was saying that I was being dead
serious about. Here's try number 2.

If the Council is to be taken seriously, and not continue to have its
legitimacy questioned, it needs to adhere to the same standards of behavior
that it enforces for the rest of the project. I actually care very little
about the details of the Foundation and even the Council, in principle, but
I do have a serious problem with the Council as it is manifesting itself
today as well as its insular nature. If no corrective action is taken, I
consider it a noble and fairly easy task to get rid of the Council and
replace it with a body that can actually be respected. One of the Council
members is arguably the worst serial verbal abuser in the history of the
project, and nothing has been done about this. It is hard to take an entity
seriously when they do not practice what they preach. It is pretty clear to
many that the Council has some serious problems and is only nominally
supported by developers. Yet I would prefer to not have an epic throw-down
with Gentoo leadership to get rid of the Council. With a few modest and
fair reforms, the Council can effectively be fixed.

My proposal, which will satisfy me and frankly also help to preserve the
legitimacy of the Council long-term are for the following reforms to happen:

If the Council wants to handle comrel and devrel, and even technical
decision-making, fine. However, they will be held accountable to the same
behavioral standards that they establish project-wide by the trustees. This
rule must exist to ensure that if the Council does not keep itself
accountable in the area of behavior to the same standards they define for
others, the Trustees can and will intervene. The ultimate goal is
self-accountability where the Council will hold themselves accountable and
thus the Trustees will not need to intervene. But if not, and there are
behavioral problems, then the trustees can and will remove misbehaving
members of the Council. I want this to be recognized as an absolutely
needed part of the "checks and balances" related to Gentoo leadership and
established in stone. It is badly needed.

Currently, the Council is elected only by developers, a relatively insular
group. While this is fine when it comes to very technical decisions that
are developer-centric in nature, it is unfortunate for Gentoo Users who are
disenfranchised from the decision-making process and who are represented by
the Foundation. This creates a schism between the ultimate goals of the
Council -- to represent developers -- and the goals of the Foundation -- to
represent the entire Gentoo community.  There is an absolute need for
Gentoo Users to be represented in decision-making for the project and the
Foundation is the ideal organization to do this. Therefore, I propose that
the Foundation have a new position of User Representative and that these
officers have an official (voting) role in the Council decision-making
process. I have no problems with Gentoo Developers serving in this capacity
as long as they are clearly people who care deeply about the Gentoo user
base. This position would be an appointed position, with the trustees
appointing them and serving as their "boss". This effectively democratizes
the Council as there is an official channel for user representation without
just opening up developer discussion to be a free-for-all like it can
become on the gentoo-dev mailling list. The Foundation currently has funds
to pay User Representatives a modest salary or consulting fee.

The role of the User Representative are three-fold:

1) Help improve transparency between Council decision-making and the larger
Gentoo community, and act as a liaison between non-developer Foundation
members and the Council.
2) Encourage Gentoo users to become members of the Foundation through
outreach and other initiatives.
3) Help to keep Trustees and Council informed by contributing to
transparency between these two groups.

These Use Representatives will be our evangelists for Gentoo development to
users and also ensure that users have a voice. I think at least two user
representatives (ideally, 3) should be appointed by the Trustees, and each
should have a vote in all Council decisions.

I believe this addresses the two key missing pieces in our current
structure -- lack of accountability and the insular and developer-centric
nature of the Council which locks out users from the decision-making
process. It also defines the relationship between the Trustees and the
Council, and how this relationship works in regards to user representation.
This preserves the democratic ideal of the Foundation, which has currently
been lost as more and more responsibilities have migrated to the Council
over time.

Best,

Daniel


On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 12:14 PM, Seemant Kulleen <seemantk@×××××.com>
wrote:

> Happy Friday Daniel,
>
> Quick note here.
>
> No.  Please no.
>
> A few emails ago, you said you were modeling ideal behavior.  Please
> continue to model good behavior, rather than fall to pride/ego things like
> this.
>
> Thank you,
> Seemant
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2018, 10:35 Daniel Robbins <drobbins@××××××.org> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 9:03 AM, Andreas K. Huettel <dilfridge@g.o
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> As a personal advice, it might help your arguments if you come over a
>>> bit less
>>> condescending.
>>
>>
>> I'm just trying to keep up with your and ulm's level of condescension --
>> quite a task! I think you win that battle. :)
>>
>> -Daniel
>>
>