| 1 |
On Monday 14 January 2008, Iain Buchanan wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 2008-01-14 at 07:35 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 3 |
> > the situation will resolve that same way these things have always been |
| 4 |
> > resolved, by one of these or a combination: |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > a. a strong leader emerges with a vision and takes over |
| 7 |
> > b. a strong leader emerges with a vision and forks |
| 8 |
> > c. common sense prevails and everyone comes to their senses |
| 9 |
> > d. a hidden bad egg goes away or dies and suddenly everything calms down |
| 10 |
> > e. the project dies and nothing replaces it |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> I think you just foretold the end of the universe too... |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> [snip] |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> > But he does have a plan, and thus far seems to be the only one |
| 17 |
> > *with*a*plan*. Let's hear what he has to say and respond accordingly. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I thought that he outlined his plan in his blog and involves him being given |
| 20 |
carte blanche to choose who stays, who goes and which way the Gentoo |
| 21 |
Foundation moves ahead? I guess this is the reason that some of us have |
| 22 |
expressed concern at this coming back (under these conditions). |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> Baldrick had a plan, and look where that got him. But then he wasn't |
| 25 |
> exactly the visionary leader... |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Yes, but his was "a cunning plan my lord!" (for the non-UK readers, Baldrick |
| 28 |
was a comedy character from a BBC series). I am not sure that a "visionary |
| 29 |
leader" is required on the case of Gentoo, in its current lifecycle stage. |
| 30 |
Visionary leadership is absolutely needed when overwhelming, fast change |
| 31 |
needs take place. We're not talking of a start up here, or a significantly |
| 32 |
diverging fork, or scrapping MS Windows and starting afresh. We have a |
| 33 |
maturing product which needs some (relatively small) developmental change so |
| 34 |
that it continues to improve. What we also need (I humbly suggest) is to |
| 35 |
develop strategic direction of the Gentoo product(s) within a business use |
| 36 |
case context. I believe that Gentoo has the potential to rival most |
| 37 |
commercial Linux distros out there, but has failed so far to do so. In |
| 38 |
addition, we have a breakdown of organisational governance because persons |
| 39 |
with the wrong skillset were appointed in Strategic and Administrative |
| 40 |
positions. It seems to me that people with the correct skillset were |
| 41 |
appointed in Technical positions, and the increasing stability of Gentoo over |
| 42 |
the last few years is an indication of this. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
In conclusion, what we need is leadership in Strategic and Administrative |
| 45 |
activities, not by default (i.e. through the current devs and trustees), but |
| 46 |
through a new organisational design. Devs & the failed organisational body |
| 47 |
of the trustees (or its replacement) should of course contribute in all |
| 48 |
decisions made, but their voice must not be absolute and at the exclusion of |
| 49 |
the user base. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
> Anyway, from what it seems from Slashdot, DRobbins' blog, and f.g.o |
| 52 |
> there is overwhelming user support for him to return (of course there |
| 53 |
> are some users against the idea). But what about the "devs"? The |
| 54 |
> support for DR seems to be less enthusiastic as you rise further up the |
| 55 |
> gentoo hierarchy. But then if he is blocked at the critical trustee |
| 56 |
> level, then either b. will happen, or he'll just return to the |
| 57 |
> background... |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
I am happy to contribute to the governance and organisational design of a new |
| 60 |
Gentoo setup and as James suggested put this forward to the users, devs, |
| 61 |
trustees. What do you think? Is there mileage in this? |
| 62 |
-- |
| 63 |
Regards, |
| 64 |
Mick |
Archives