1 |
Dominik Riva wrote: |
2 |
> On Jan 15, 2008 11:02 AM, Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
3 |
>> George Prowse wrote: |
4 |
>> > Dominik Riva wrote: |
5 |
>> >> Let the community vote on a constitution for the council. (One from |
6 |
>> >> the developers and as much others that have a substancial backing from |
7 |
>> >> the community. In Switzerland we normally can vote for 2 to 3 versions |
8 |
>> >> of a "hot iron" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum#Switzerland) |
9 |
>> >> |
10 |
>> OK I think we're mixing terminology here, which could get confusing: |
11 |
>> there already is a Council, and it's the ultimate decision-making body on |
12 |
>> technical matters. |
13 |
> |
14 |
> I was referring to exactly that Council. I would like to see it |
15 |
> rebuild stronger then ever by being voted by the community at large |
16 |
> (including developers). |
17 |
Oh man, so we've gone from discussing the composition of the trustees to how |
18 |
the Dev Council is elected? That's nuts imo. Keeping the technical and |
19 |
support stuff separate is vital: it's like a company[1] focussing on it's |
20 |
core duties (via the Executives) and ancillary services (other Directors, |
21 |
eg Finance or Legal.) The separation of concerns allows both to focus |
22 |
effectively without having to worry about the other side of it. |
23 |
|
24 |
Yes that other side hasn't happened, since all the trustees were devs. (And |
25 |
this was discussed and acknowledged *openly* on the nfp list.) The devs |
26 |
appreciate that, and aren't about to volunteer to become trustees: they're |
27 |
just 1) calming down from the shock I imagine, since most of them paid as |
28 |
little attention to that list as the average user, and 2) taking some time |
29 |
to think over the options. |
30 |
|
31 |
There's zero benefit in users voting for technical leads: the devs wouldn't |
32 |
buy it and I hope nor would most of the users (when they think about it.) |
33 |
It would just be a popularity contest. While there's always an element of |
34 |
that, these guys know each other on a day-in, day-out basis, |
35 |
personality-wise and technically. Let them make their own minds up about |
36 |
who they want to lead them. We don't need politicians. |
37 |
|
38 |
We had userreps: I'm all for that idea, and for giving them some kind of |
39 |
influence, however that's best achieved (be it voice in #gentoo-foo, a |
40 |
gentoo.org address, assign ability on bugzilla or w/e I don't care: it's |
41 |
something we can discuss since we're not rushing to meet some artificial |
42 |
deadline.) They withered simply because they were seen as toothless. |
43 |
|
44 |
Yes there needs to be a new understanding between users and devs; hopefully |
45 |
the devs are seeing they can't just run everything on their own, and maybe |
46 |
they'll be a little less arrogant in the future (we can dream, eh? ;) They |
47 |
might even start to listen to some of their users who work in the |
48 |
real-world and use computers to make a living, not just at Uni, and see |
49 |
that massive, loyal and committed user base has a wealth of talent in all |
50 |
kinds of areas they know nothing about. |
51 |
|
52 |
PR, Legal & Admin spring to mind ;-) |
53 |
|
54 |
[1] OFC Gentoo is not a company: I'm just trying to make an analogy to show |
55 |
the separation; call it executive, legislature and judiciary if you prefer. |
56 |
> But it will in its new incarnation handling all matters Gentoo, that |
57 |
> needs a decision made by some sort of a lead. |
58 |
> |
59 |
I don't agree with merging the legal/admin side with the technical Council. |
60 |
It's a complete dead-end. Maybe having some sort of overall community |
61 |
meeting of Council, user-reps and staff/infra would be good. But at no |
62 |
point should that *ever* encroach on the technical decisions. That's what |
63 |
people go through the training for, and why we trust them to install our |
64 |
software: because they make the best technical decisions, irrespective of |
65 |
other concerns. |
66 |
|
67 |
Lose that and you lose what makes Gentoo so special, for me at least. |
68 |
|
69 |
<snip> |
70 |
>> *GENTOO STILL ROCKS!* |
71 |
> |
72 |
> But for how long if some big problems don't get addressed because they |
73 |
> are not technical by nature? |
74 |
> |
75 |
Well the main bugbear has been the dev m-l. NotTheProctors will be dealing |
76 |
with that at some point: watch the gentoo-council m-l for detailed |
77 |
proposals (not for a week or two at least, I'd imagine, given all this |
78 |
hullabaloo.) But that's been ongoing for at least 3 years afaict. |
79 |
|
80 |
Apart from that, loads of devs are working away on the software which is why |
81 |
it still rocks. Imagine how much quicker it would go if we could lose all |
82 |
the dramas/flamewars/noise and just get on with enjoying our software and |
83 |
our community. |
84 |
|
85 |
|
86 |
-- |
87 |
gentoo-project@l.g.o mailing list |