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

[Raymond Jennings]

What if the "chief architect" were elected democratically?

On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 11:40 AM, William L. Thomson Jr. 
<wlt-ml@××××××.com> wrote:
> 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.