Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Leadership Structure

[Richard Freeman]

Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
>
> I don't think our current problem was caused by not having a "council
> leader". Also, current policy already states that 2 council members can
> make a decision on urgent matters that needs to be ratified by the full
> council at their next meeting.

Some of my suggestions were based on my perception of some of Gentoo's 
longer-term issues.  I'm not suggesting a solution merely to the current 
GLEP 39 debate - but what might be part of a framework for a longer-term 
direction for Gentoo.

Many have brought up the idea that Gentoo tends to be a bit rudder-less 
- it can't take on bold initiatives that have any chance at all of being 
disruptive.  It also can't really speak with "one voice" about anything. 
  A lead role - even if it rotates - would at least give one person a 
chance to make some kind of a mark upon the distro, but with checks and 
balances.

>
> You're voicing the view that the Foundation should be nothing more than
> a holder for IP and assets. That is not what it was created for, nor
> should it be limited to that, imo. Also, you're changing the focus of
> the council as it was created as a technical body that would steer the
> technical advancement of the distro.
>

That is exactly what I'm advocating, but as long as both bodies 
represent the same constituency the division isn't entirely critical. 
However, as a legal body the trustees will never be able to act as 
effectively as the council - just due to the level of formality.  Since 
we aren't a 10,000 employee corporation I don't know that we want so 
much red tape in day-to-day operations.

> There are
> also plans to open membership to the foundation to accept members of the
> community, be them users, companies, sponsors, partners or any
> interested party.
> In that sense, the council would represent the developer "community",
> whilst the foundation would represent the "community" at large.
>

I do think that this is potentially a very bad idea (and I do stress the 
word "potentially" - the devil is in the details).  It has nothing to do 
with any desire to exclude the "community" - to the contrary I've tried 
to be vocal in general about the need to include users in more 
activities, and I strongly support the whole user-rel concept.

My concern is that ultimately the devs need to implement any initiatives 
that Gentoo takes, so they need to be completely on-board.  If some 
sponsor can essentially buy Foundation votes it could cause Gentoo to 
take a direction that most devs object to - which will just lead to a 
fork.  It also lowers the barrier to Foundation membership a bit too 
much.  Right now to be a member you must commit to at least a moderate 
amount of volunteer contribution, which weeds out people who are all 
about talk with absolutely no action.  If ANYBODY could sign up and vote 
then you could have a lot of devs frustrated because the people in 
charge really don't consider the devs their constituents.

I can't really think of any non-profit organization that operates in 
this way.  Just about all of them limit legal membership to those who 
are heavily committed to the organization, and those who contribute 
significantly financially (and I'm not talking $5 per year via paypal).

> | 3.  Council will meet monthly, but any slacker policies will be at its
> | own discretion.
>
> I wasn't around the time the council was created, but from the mails
> those that were sent, it was a "conscious" choice and option from the
> developer community to set those in.

I'm not debating that here.  I'm suggesting that the devs should make 
another "conscious" choice to get rid of this policy in favor of another 
system of accountability.


>
> If your purpose it to count only active devs for the number of sigs
> needed, you need a better method. You're leaving out (or run the chance
> of leaving out) all staff from that count. It might be better to
> subtract to the total number of devs, the total that shows up in the
> slacker script.
>

My concern is that if we're not careful we could end up with a count 
that reflects devs+staff on paper and not in reality - making it VERY 
hard to get the requisite number of sigs.  The cvs commit metric is 
straightforward to measure and therefore a useful benchmark of the 
approximate size of the dev+staff community (as long as the ratio of 
dev:staff stays about the same then the number of active devs can be 
used to determine the total size regardless of what the ratio is).  What 
I wanted to avoid is some really complex formula which nobody can work 
out in practice, or the need to have monthly purges of the rolls just in 
case somebody wants to have a referendum.

> Although this process is somewhat lengthy and complex, we might need to
> have a provision for it - for extraordinary circumstances.
> If we try to institute it, we'll need to review a few clauses, though.
>

Couldn't agree more - this was really meant to simulate discussion 
around some possible directions Gentoo could take than to be something 
that could simply be enacted as-is or anything like that.

With the Council and Trustees apparently discussing how they can handle 
their various roles in these kinds of situations, this could be good 
food for thought.  I certainly don't expect any of this to be enacted, 
but if it influences any decision-making in a positive way then I'll be 
happy I could add something constructive...
-- 
gentoo-project@l.g.o mailing list