| 1 |
On 6/4/20 3:49 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 2020-06-04 at 13:32 -0400, Adam Feldman wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 6/4/20 3:15 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> Three seems to be a very good number -- on one hand, it's more than one, |
| 5 |
>>> so the others can stop any single one from getting absolute power. |
| 6 |
>>> On the other, it's small enough for them to be able to actively work |
| 7 |
>>> together and directly establish a common set of goals (i.e. via |
| 8 |
>>> an agreement rather than a majority vote). |
| 9 |
>>> |
| 10 |
>>> |
| 11 |
>>> WDYT? |
| 12 |
>>> |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
>> Hard no from me. |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> If several developers band together in the current system, while some |
| 17 |
>> sort of regulatory capture can be achieved, it's limited by the fact |
| 18 |
>> that the regulatory bodies are large enough, and there are several of |
| 19 |
>> them, such that numbers prevent a hostile takeover. |
| 20 |
>> |
| 21 |
>> This proposal reduces the number to 3 individuals. Last thing this |
| 22 |
>> distro needs is 3 close buddies taking over all 3 positions, not |
| 23 |
>> providing and check or balance against one another and having complete |
| 24 |
>> and utter control. |
| 25 |
>> |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> I don't really understand your negativity. You seem to assume that |
| 28 |
> everyone in the distributions means harm to it. Why don't you have more |
| 29 |
> trust in your colleagues? Don't you think they mean the best for Gentoo |
| 30 |
> and are not really interested in 'hostile takeovers'? (I mean, how |
| 31 |
> could you even consider a 'hostile' takeover when we're all Gentoo |
| 32 |
> devs?) |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Not at all. Just consider a simple situation... There are your |
| 36 |
triumvirate members, A, B, and C. And they really don't like dev D. |
| 37 |
There is nothing to stop them from sanctioning, kicking, or otherwise |
| 38 |
negatively affecting dev D. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
At least in the current system, we have a Council of 7 individuals, QA |
| 41 |
team of 5, ComRel team of 9, and Foundation of 7. That provides a lot |
| 42 |
of potential for a variety of individuals to be involved, and stops any |
| 43 |
particular individual or group from being overly power. Let's say |
| 44 |
Undertakers (2 individuals) or Recruiting (2 individuals) started acting |
| 45 |
against individuals... Maybe the two people in undertakers really |
| 46 |
dislike someone and want to get rid of them. Or the two in recruiters |
| 47 |
seem to not be giving someone a fair chance to join... Would you rather |
| 48 |
have have 7 Council Members and 9 ComRel members take your appeal? Or |
| 49 |
1-3 members of the triumvirate? What if the Triumvirate consists of the |
| 50 |
same individuals as the group acting against you... You have no recourse |
| 51 |
against single individuals. Moreover, in another email, you lamented |
| 52 |
that the Trustees had the power to remove Foundation members... Can you |
| 53 |
imagine if there was only one person accountable for whether people |
| 54 |
would get removed or not? Vs several individuals who should come to |
| 55 |
consensus? It's clear that in the event of some negative interaction |
| 56 |
(inevitable) that things are safer with groups than individuals in charge. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
And your assertions as to what I meant read way more into things. I |
| 59 |
assume everyone means harm to it? Of course not. I don't have trust in |
| 60 |
my colleagues and think their goals are hostile takeovers? Come on. |
| 61 |
Take it back a notch, please. |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
I just don't think that consolidating power into minimal numbers of |
| 64 |
people is beneficial. It's obvious, and a given that not everyone gets |
| 65 |
along with one another. Would you rather leave your fate to 7-9 people? |
| 66 |
Or 1? It's really not hard to imagine that interpersonal disagreements |
| 67 |
have the potential for abuse when power is consolidated. Am I wrong? Or |
| 68 |
was GLEP 39 passed to democratize Gentoo and reduce episodes of |
| 69 |
interpersonal conflict that existed before? Personally, I don't see the |
| 70 |
logic in reverting that. What if the new Technical Lead decides that |
| 71 |
your way of doing things isn't beneficial to Gentoo, and instead of |
| 72 |
having several competing projects leading to the best solution, we end |
| 73 |
up with some particular one with people unable to work on what they want to? |
| 74 |
|
| 75 |
|
| 76 |
If your goal is merely to speed up the rate that issues are resolved by |
| 77 |
any particular body, why not instead come up with ways to streamline the |
| 78 |
way that those bodies function? Your concern is that ComRel needs to |
| 79 |
come together to a vote for things? Empower the individual members to |
| 80 |
take action, and then if that doesn't adequately resolve things, then it |
| 81 |
goes to the whole body for review. You want better community relations? |
| 82 |
Fine, start a new project, sanctioned by the council and foundation and |
| 83 |
do it. You want the Council to act more expeditiously on technical |
| 84 |
matters? Why don't we come up with some mechanism of causing that to |
| 85 |
happen... But I do not think that consolidating power to an individual |
| 86 |
is safe, considering the potential for conflict and the fact that it is |
| 87 |
regression from GLEP 39 and all it stands for. |
| 88 |
|
| 89 |
-- |
| 90 |
Thanks, |
| 91 |
|
| 92 |
Adam Feldman |
| 93 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 94 |
NP-Hardass@g.o |
| 95 |
0x671C52F118F89C67 |
Archives