Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo conflicts and leadership

[Matthew Thode]

On 01/05/2017 01:33 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> Starting a new thread, so others can filter.
>
>> On Thursday, January 5, 2017 2:15:34 PM EST Rich Freeman wrote:
>> Two things:
>>
>> First, serious conflicts are actually pretty rare.  Sure, they're in
>> the spotlight right now because we've had one of those
>> once-in-a-few-years big incidents.
>
> Somewhat, with regard to myself, I am tired of watching it happen over the
> years and doing nothing. I thought it was just me, but years of observation
> has shown its a much larger problem, going back to people like Ciaran and
> before. That I chose a year that other stuff was going on, was just by
> coincidence.
>
> I had long mentioned taking things on list on by bug for years. I just held
> back and finally the dam broke.
>

I don't think we are talking about your posts here but other incident(s).

As far as preventing conflicts of interest and being more open goes I
have made a proposal to 'slay the two headed beast' and unite Gentoo
under one org structure.  No one seems to have really commented on it
though...

>> Second, conflicts don't actually result in quagmires.  Life moves on.
>> We don't have difficulty deciding what to do with problematic people.
>> A decision gets made, and sometimes it is appealed, and then a final
>> decision gets made.
>
> Hardly, Gentoo Java has been stagnant in may ways for years. That is
> essentially a quagmire. New Java devs are few and far between. But it is not
> just Java lacking. I love how people say Gentoo is lacking man power, then
> turn around sand say its not in a  quagmire. If you lack man power, clearly
> things are not getting done. So some things are not moving on.
>
> Ebuilds with no EAPI, cruft that needs to be updated, removed etc. Lots of
> stuff in tree far beyond Java.
>

Gentoo wants more devs, I wouldn't call it a NEED just yet.  There will
never be a lack of work...

>> I'm not sure why you think Gentoo uses consensus-based
>> decision-making.
>
> Because it is lead by pleasing the developers. Any action that developers do
> not agree with is not taken. That is consensus.
>
> From what I have observed the council is routinely polling for topics, and
> hardly presenting new ones. I do not see leadership. If decisions are not
> voted on or made by all developers, seems they are not taking place.
>
> Nothing has changed on Foundation side, I do not see much happening anywhere.
>

I'd say the Foundation is more active now than it has been in years, and
that's a good thing.  As far as new topics being presented to council
and not by council I think that's also a good thing, to have ideas /
proposals come from the bottom up (unless something systemically bad is
found and a top down approach is needed).  The existing system is fairly
democratic and not representative which I think is fine at our size.  I
don't think Gentoo should be more chaotic, as that just leads to more
in-fighting.

>> Most big things happen simply by announcing them on
>> the lists and then change happens.  Sometimes it is controversial, so
>> then it waits for the next Council meeting, assuming the Council even
>> needs to deal with it as opposed to a project team.  Then the decision
>> is made, and life moves on.
>
> Where is the leadership coming from the council? The council coming up with
> some direction for Gentoo?
>

Direction is asked for and then given.  Council is elected by the devs,
and represent Gentoo as a whole.

> Is there any direction?
>
> The council was supposed to lead the project technically. I do not see such
> happening. Here is an example, just happens to relate to Java.
> http://www.funtoo.org/Java_Configuration_Design_Update
>
> Where are the council produced GLEPs?
>

This area is probably as needed by council, whether or not this should
be the case is a good question that should be raised on it's own.

>> Now, what we don't do is have the Council just come out with policies
>> out of nowhere that nobody else agrees with.  That isn't being
>> decisive, that is just being stupid when you're a volunteer-based
>> organization.  Sure, many of our decisions are compromises, but they
>> tend to be compromises that make sense.
>
> No that is leadership. Leaders come up with ideas to benefit those they lead.
> They should not solely rely on what others feel should be done, etc. There are
> many times leaders must take things in directions people disagree with at
> first, but sometimes tend to be the right thing in the long run.
>
> For example, things like SLFC was discussed regarding Gentoo long ago. If
> Gentoo ever did that, there would be a percentage that disagree. Those same
> people may or may not want to be involved in the foundation. But really such
> decisions should not be left to them but say the Trustees. They vote for and
> elect the Trustees. Thus any direction and decision they agree on, should not
> be challenged per se. If you do not like it, you elect different ones next
> time.
>
> I believe you, Rich have stated exactly that about your opinions and such. If
> people do not like it, vote for someone else for council right? But that does
> not mean you should be micro managed as a council member. To an extent your
> opinion does outweigh others. You were democratically elected by a majority to
> represent them. Not for them to approve everything you do.
>

Council as it exists now is representative with it's agenda mostly set
democratically, aka direct.

What you are seeking is that the Council takes more action without
direct community involvement?

If that is the case that's something I don't think is a good idea,
though if actions taken solely by council then had to be voted on GLEP
style I think that'd be fine (ratification of changes).  The types of
changes I'm thinking that would be taken by Council and not by a
sub-group are probably on the GLEP level anyway.


-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)