1 |
On Sunday 13 January 2008, James wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> I turn down most opportunities to be on a BOD |
4 |
> with many organizations, but, I care about Gentoo quite a lot. If Gentoo |
5 |
> is truely in crisis, why have the devs not discuss this with the wider |
6 |
> user community? This simple fact make the whole state of affairs |
7 |
> suspicious to say the least. |
8 |
|
9 |
It could just be managerial ineptitude though, combined with emotional |
10 |
immaturity of certain persons (if Alan's previous critique re.treating |
11 |
persons as machines holds true). |
12 |
|
13 |
> After reading the aforementioned Blog (by Daniel), I have strong |
14 |
> reservations about Daniels 'vision'. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> First, let him publish his vision, including who he wants to name to the |
17 |
> board of trustees and the governing bylaws (or changes) he is proposing. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> Second if he wants to be the day bay (tribal chief) then he should |
20 |
> have only a vote as to the makeup of the BOD. Allowing him to return |
21 |
> with the sole responsibility to select a BOD, is a recipe for doom, |
22 |
> IMHO. You can describe DOOM as you wish, but, giving carte-blanche |
23 |
> control to him, or anyone, is foolish, at best. Doing so with no |
24 |
> published data, nor restrictive covenants, nor by-laws, nor mission |
25 |
> statement, nor accountability mechanisms.... is unwise, IMHO. |
26 |
|
27 |
Hear, hear! You echo my reservations very well, in case they didn't come |
28 |
through clear enough in my previous post. |
29 |
|
30 |
> It also sounds to me as though Daniel, is trying to trick or provoke |
31 |
> the trustees into allowing him to decide the future of the distro |
32 |
> without first telling us what that future is to be. |
33 |
|
34 |
Exactly. But this may have to do with his (and others) disagreement with |
35 |
Ciaran? |
36 |
|
37 |
> But then again |
38 |
> why the trustees have become apathetic and have not sought out |
39 |
> replacement for themselves, is inexcusible if indeed this is the case. |
40 |
> Daniel probably understands the inherent value in an established distro, |
41 |
> such as gentoo, and might just be looking to use it (gentoo) more as a |
42 |
> private fiefdom than an engine for the future benefit of the greater gentoo |
43 |
> community. Dunno..... |
44 |
|
45 |
I don't know either, but as you have suggested in your previous message and |
46 |
also propose below there are ways of putting checks and balances in place to |
47 |
ensure that: |
48 |
|
49 |
1. Strategic direction is decided by the wider community in a democratic way, |
50 |
while preserving the Gentoo principles (i.e. the majority of *future* users |
51 |
may want a Ubuntu like distro, but that's not what Gentoo is about). |
52 |
|
53 |
2. Tactical decisions on what coding should be used, are taken by devs, so |
54 |
that they enable the strategic direction and objectives to be achieved. |
55 |
|
56 |
3. An administrative body with responsible and professional individuals is |
57 |
elected to undertake the necessary tasks required to keep Gentoo operating |
58 |
and moving forwards, without putting at risk its e.g. legal status. |
59 |
|
60 |
I see the above three as distinctly different areas of endeavour which tend to |
61 |
attract different skillsets and personality profiles. So it makes sense to |
62 |
define them separately, especially as it will offer a focus for succinct |
63 |
deliverables and responsibilities. The boundaries of decision making are |
64 |
clear and if life changing moments arrive the the whole Gentoo community is |
65 |
asked to participate to the decision making. |
66 |
|
67 |
> As such here are a few tenants I'd like to see in the article of |
68 |
> incorporation, bylaws, or where ever the focus of Gentoo is publish. Like |
69 |
> wise |
70 |
> you could also view this as my vision of Gentoo's future. Needless to |
71 |
> say, I'm what out in front of those that want gentoo to become something |
72 |
> they use to make a living with, if not reach some measure of significant |
73 |
> financial success. |
74 |
> |
75 |
> |
76 |
> 1. Keep Gentoo open and free for all to use and exploit to earn a living, |
77 |
> create a business, become an entrepreneur, educate and use as the |
78 |
> individual determines is in the best interest of the individual. |
79 |
> |
80 |
> 2. Keep licensing more in line with the BSD license for Gentoo centric |
81 |
> technology (thus encouraging entrepreneurship as defined by the individual |
82 |
> while simultaneously respecting GPLv2 and maintaining compliance with |
83 |
> GPLv2. GPLv3 is a poor idea, IMHO. GPLv3 can be made easily available |
84 |
> and leave GPLv3 compliance/responsibility up to the individual. In fact |
85 |
> software licensing and compliance should always be up to the |
86 |
> INDIVIDUAL, IMHO. |
87 |
> |
88 |
> Digression |
89 |
> I love conspriracy theories: Here one that makes you think. Greenpeace |
90 |
> receives it's largest contributions from those that what to keep the |
91 |
> energy markets closed to all but the largest corporations..... |
92 |
|
93 |
Ha! Is that true!?? Who are the largest contributors? |
94 |
|
95 |
> Here's another: GPLv3 is the work of The Son of Satan, who sits |
96 |
> atop a mountain in Redmond...... |
97 |
> |
98 |
> /end Digression |
99 |
> |
100 |
> |
101 |
> 3. Devise a formal sematic to install of all gentoo's instantiations |
102 |
> that is open and flexible so various groups can easily create their |
103 |
> own installation semantics and share their installation semantics |
104 |
> with the wider public communities. (competition is the best |
105 |
> way to solve the current gentoo installation quagmire, methinks. |
106 |
> |
107 |
> 4. Formalize a process where others (non devs) can build, store and |
108 |
> maintain ebuilds that are not blessed by the devs, so individuals |
109 |
> can easily share their work with the larger Gentoo community. If one |
110 |
> choses such and ebuild there on their own. The gentoo devs should |
111 |
> develop a semantic where folks not officially part of the devs can |
112 |
> maintain a package or two, rather than making ebuilds for obsolescence, |
113 |
> unilaterally. |
114 |
> |
115 |
> |
116 |
> 5. Trustees can be elected to one year terms. If trustees disagree |
117 |
> on the direction of the majority of the other BOD members, they |
118 |
> should be encouraged to aggregate with small bands of devs |
119 |
> and build alternatives (such as Mr. McCreesh's alternative to |
120 |
> portage)...... Forking of Gentoo is a good thing, not a bad thing. |
121 |
> Deal with it. If you do not want forks, then, allow for flexibility. |
122 |
> Be willing to integrate forks back into Gentoo, if feasible |
123 |
> and the majority of users vote for it. Discussions of |
124 |
> all issues should occur on Gentoo-politics or some such group. |
125 |
> Not spread around the groups. Discussion of Gentoo's future |
126 |
> exlusive by the devs reflects very poorly on gentoo and is |
127 |
> ample evidence of exactly what's wrong with Gentoo. |
128 |
> |
129 |
> |
130 |
> 6. Provide resources to the gentoo-embedded group to assist them |
131 |
> in their efforts to assimilate embedded-gentoo into gentoo |
132 |
> so that lots of ordinary users can build and experiment with |
133 |
> embedded gentoo. Provide resources for a seemless integration |
134 |
> between gentoo-embedded and gentoo workstations and user |
135 |
> to encourage the commercial creations of lots of devices that |
136 |
> small companies can build, sell, support and make a living. |
137 |
> |
138 |
> 7. Provide direction and methodologies so both users and |
139 |
> technical folks, can integrate Gentoo into the normal business |
140 |
> practices in small and mid-size (service oriented) companies. |
141 |
> |
142 |
> 8. Provide wikis for those requisite areas where folks can use |
143 |
> gentoo technologies to incubate, start, build and run business |
144 |
> centric to gentoo, such as legalese, accounting pricipals, |
145 |
> basic marketing, how to build a gentoo E commerce server, etc. etc. |
146 |
|
147 |
The above three suggestions are probably the most important in establishing a |
148 |
viable business model for Gentoo, ensuring its growth (on a |
149 |
societal/commercial pull, rather than a technocratic, elitist push basis). |
150 |
If developed enough it has the potential to threaten Redmond in a real way! |
151 |
|
152 |
> 9. Provide a clear migration path for novices to wanna-bee to techie to |
153 |
> entrepreneur to persons with a successful financial status to |
154 |
> a state of being self determinant. Mentoring, wikis and advise: a place for |
155 |
> entrepreneurs and techies to meet, hang out (on-line) and |
156 |
> aggregate into startup companies. |
157 |
> |
158 |
> 10. Celebrate the uniqueness that we all have and respect the choices |
159 |
> that the individual uses gentoo for, for what the individual determines |
160 |
> Gentoo should be used for. Loose the attitude that if you use Gentoo |
161 |
> to make money, you are creating some form of evil. Quite the opposite |
162 |
> is true; IMHO. |
163 |
|
164 |
I don't think many people believe that using Gentoo to earn a living is evil. |
165 |
I believe the model of open software development is well proven and charging |
166 |
for offering a service is not in contrast to it. |
167 |
|
168 |
Let's hope that such proposals are discussed and developed adequately to |
169 |
secure Gentoo's survival and push it in a path of growth. What do we need to |
170 |
do next? |
171 |
-- |
172 |
Regards, |
173 |
Mick |