Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Trying to become a Gentoo Developer again spanning 8 years...

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 7:34:26 PM EDT Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote:
> On 04/10/16 06:26, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> > Which then leads to the question, who leads Gentoo? Where is Gentoo going
> > if neither Foundation nor Council sets the direction?
>
> I don't think we have direction in a Chief Architect sense. I believe it
> has some drawbacks.

Everything does, but most successful projects and companies tend to have 
singular leadership. Gentoo was created and rose to popularity under a Chief 
Architect structure. The experiment in more Democratic Utopian structure may 
be responsible for its decline in popularity.

For most things returning to your roots is not always a bad thing. Many go 
through identity and organization crisis. Look at Apple without Steve Jobs 
return. Had Apple never brought him back, where would the company be now?

> Could you elaborate more how do you see leadership in a volunteer
> organization like Gentoo?

Many do not like it, but I have always compared it to something like the 
RedCross. That had a mix of paid and unpaid positions.

I HAVE NO INTEREST IN PAYING MYSELF then or now!!!

That being said, I feel Gentoo could benefit from some paid stuff, like say a 
monthly news letter, maybe aspects of infra, staff, etc.

When people are 100% volunteers, I think it makes direction hard. How can I 
tell you what needs to be done? Will you even care? Will you spend YOUR time 
to make changes I want to have happen?

In the perspective of say a Cheif Architect but could be the council. Say the 
council wants Java to move a given direction. Who will do the work? Even if we 
agree it needs to be done. Someone has to do it, and sometimes that may fall 
to someone paid vs volunteer. After all a paid person if they do not do as 
requested/told. They are no longer paid and someone else is... You cannot 
treat volunteers as such. You cannot expect things from a volunteer, only be 
thankful for their contributions.

Now saying this is very precarious. Who gets paid, how much, etc. Tons of 
details to be worked out. It was just ideas I had long ago when I had more 
interest in participating in the foundation. Now most my ideas or just 
utopian. If others want to make them happen, I can share all my ideas and 
thoughts. But I do not see myself going down that path again. It was VERY bad 
for me.

Regardless of the paying aspect. Gentoo needs a unified leadership, that does 
not change year after year, that has long term strategy and plans in mind. 
What is best for Gentoo over 5, 10, 20 years. Like FreeBSD having been around 
for some ~30 years.

Most any company, nation, etc has terms for their leaders beyond a single 
year. Direction would flip flop to much to swap out leadership.

It may be best to have a chief architect and some top levels that do not 
change. Then a council below, who can pass on community things, so there is a 
balance between community and leadership on direction.

But what if a council decisions is not liked, Can you appeal that? I think 
having a head of any organization can help solve many problems. That sometimes 
groups cannot. At the same time it can create many more problems just the 
same. But most companies have 1 president, 1 CEO, and that is for a reason. 
The board tends to work with them, but they tend to be ultimately responsible.

I also do not see anything uniting say Foundation/Trustees and Council other 
than some sort of head to the leadership. It could be the Trustees are placed 
over, as they are not, the officers. A CEO position or Chief Architect may be 
created to be beneath the Trustees/Foundation, but above the Council.

Something so Gentoo has 1 unified head that works together collectively. Rather 
than in their own silos.

> > Gentoo get's it first in an overlay rather than in tree. If he was a
> > developer. Gentoo would get it in tree before every distro, including
> > Fedora, and RedHat, Paid for by RedHat.... How is that not a good thing?
>
> I'd be all for such technical contribution, which I see would be much
> more effective having direct commit rights.

I think in cases, there should be exceptions to the recruiting process. Which 
Dr Andrew John Hughes would be such an exception.

Working on a single ebuild, but a VERY large, complex and important one, 
IcedTea/OpenJDK for every Linux distro.... Having him committing that directly 
on Gentoo may attract more that are wanting to take part in the development of 
the Java JDK itself.

> I'm not sure if it's really all-or-nothing there. It may be feasible to
> become a Gentoo developer and make Java on Gentoo great again, but put
> aside the attempt to fix everything you disagree with in Gentoo at least
> for a while (even where I think you do have a good point). As just an
> observer, I don't see both things being possible at this moment though.

I am not out to change all of Gentoo. Even if I regain status as a developer 
my focus is just on technical stuff. I have no incentive for the rest and it 
cost me quite allot over the years. I am not eager to repeat or even chance 
such.

That said, Gentoo has needed, and does need desperately need major change. 
Though over the years most are ok with status quo and not eager to make major 
changes, if they feel they are even necessary.

Fixing things in any 1 area is great, but if not addressing larger issues as a 
whole. It will just be chasing and putting out fires rather than really moving 
things forward.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.