| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
rich0
Developer
Joined: 15 Sep 2002
Posts: 163
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 2:32 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I'll just comment that a lot of this is a matter of priorities.
Gentoo could add 5000 more developers next week, and none of them could decide that they're interested in maintaining the particular package YOU are most interested in. People will tend to scratch their own itches. If there is a package that you in particular want better supported, then you might need to be the one to maintain it.
Sure, Gentoo can use more developers, but simply adding developers isn't going to cause any particular package to be maintained the way you want it maintained. (Seems like many are complaining about openrc lately, and that is a case of a package which IS maintained, but some people just don't like how. There is nothing wrong with that, but the solution in that case is usually to fork it. You can't compel somebody to maintain a package the way you want it to be maintained.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 4:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rich0 wrote: | | Gentoo could add 5000 more developers next week, and none of them could decide that they're interested in maintaining the particular package YOU are most interested in. People will tend to scratch their own itches. If there is a package that you in particular want better supported, then you might need to be the one to maintain it. |
rich0 ... in the most general sense of 'support', I agree. However, I would consider such things as @system, tools used to maintain gentoo (PM, gentoolkit, etc) should be not considered as dependent on someone "scratching an itch", or not. So, should someone change how x,y,z functions (ie, the use of 'sync-type = git', changelogs, etc) then everything expecting that function to work in a certain way needs to be updated to reflect these changes (or that change is effectively breaking the user experience) ... and, no, "keeping the majority happy" is not a valid argument ITR.
| rich0 wrote: | | Sure, Gentoo can use more developers, but simply adding developers isn't going to cause any particular package to be maintained the way you want it maintained. (Seems like many are complaining about openrc lately, and that is a case of a package which IS maintained, but some people just don't like how. There is nothing wrong with that, but the solution in that case is usually to fork it. You can't compel somebody to maintain a package the way you want it to be maintained.) |
It is a reasonable expectation that a critical component of the system is well maintained, and that this maintenance does not include breaking working setups because one particular developer thinks that this is what development amounts to. If the criteria of maintenance is defined by the developer then we too can be similarly single minded and expect they do the work we do to support it in gentoo fora. That isn't the case because we have an implicit agreement (explicit if one considers gentoo's charter) that work done is "for the community, by the community" and that we work together for common mutual benefit. Saying, "if you don't like it, you can fork" is all well and good, but it is the threat of such division that is supposed to act as a check on one or other of us doing as we please. It is this sort of 'solution', or way of framing the problem, that effectively makes it seem as though we are being provided something without ever having to do anything in return, that is incorrect, users share a similar burden in terms of making gentoo function, we provide Q&A in the form of bug reports, etc, support each other with skill sharing, problem solving, etc, etc (ad infinatum). Developers do not have an out in saying that they have some right to do as they please, the reverse is true, they are agents of the community and the community has every right to expect they do the right thing for the community, not whatever they please. This is a common refrain in developer circles, and seems to be something inculcated as one is brought into the fold, however, it is entirely contrary (and therefore unsupportable) in terms of the charter's "four pillars".
best ... khay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony0945
Watchman
Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 5127
Location: Illinois, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| khayyam wrote: | It is a reasonable expectation that a critical component of the system is well maintained, and that this maintenance does not include breaking working setups because one particular developer thinks that this is what development amounts to. If the criteria of maintenance is defined by the developer then we too can be similarly single minded and expect they do the work we do to support it in gentoo fora. That isn't the case because we have an implicit agreement (explicit if one considers gentoo's charter) that work done is "for the community, by the community" and that we work together for common mutual benefit. Saying, "if you don't like it, you can fork" is all well and good, but it is the threat of such division that is supposed to act as a check on one or other of us doing as we please. It is this sort of 'solution', or way of framing the problem, that effectively makes it seem as though we are being provided something without ever having to do anything in return, that is incorrect, users share a similar burden in terms of making gentoo function, we provide Q&A in the form of bug reports, etc, support each other with skill sharing, problem solving, etc, etc (ad infinatum). Developers do not have an out in saying that they have some right to do as they please, the reverse is true, they are agents of the community and the community has every right to expect they do the right thing for the community, not whatever they please. This is a common refrain in developer circles, and seems to be something inculcated as one is brought into the fold, however, it is entirely contrary (and therefore unsupportable) in terms of the charter's "four pillars".
best ... khay |
ABSOLUTELY! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rich0
Developer
Joined: 15 Sep 2002
Posts: 163
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| khayyam wrote: | | However, I would consider such things as @system, tools used to maintain gentoo (PM, gentoolkit, etc) should be not considered as dependent on someone "scratching an itch", or not. |
In all community-based projects, they are whether you want them to be or not. They are CERTAINLY dependent on somebody scratching an itch with Gentoo. The only reason gcc works on Gentoo is because somebody considers maintaining it to be personally worth their while.
| khayyam wrote: | | Developers do not have an out in saying that they have some right to do as they please, the reverse is true, they are agents of the community and the community has every right to expect they do the right thing for the community, not whatever they please. This is a common refrain in developer circles, and seems to be something inculcated as one is brought into the fold, however, it is entirely contrary (and therefore unsupportable) in terms of the charter's "four pillars". |
Are you talking about the Gentoo Foundation charter? That doesn't really govern the distro, just the Foundation. The distro tends to run more by the social contract.
In any case, Gentoo developers are not anybody's agents but their own. We have principles that they're required to adhere to in order to remain developers, but there is no affirmative requirement for any Gentoo developer to contribute in any particular way at all.
Besides, what are you going to do? Kick developers out for not working on the things you'd prefer that they work on? You can expect whatever you want, but you're powerless to actually enforce these expectations except by choosing to leave, which is of course your choice to make. Nobody forces anybody to use Gentoo. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ant P.
Watchman
Joined: 18 Apr 2009
Posts: 6920
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rich0 wrote: | | Nobody forces anybody to use Gentoo. |
Speaking from a purely technical viewpoint, it's very hard to fix or even work around the bad parts of Gentoo - I've wasted many days looking for a way to not have the main tree's package.use.{,un}mask override my overlays, and there's no way to simply inherit a system profile and fix the bits that suck (having both net-tools+iproute2, unconditional busybox and openrc, the ass-backwards dependency tree of rc pulling in init). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| khayyam wrote: | | However, I would consider such things as @system, tools used to maintain gentoo (PM, gentoolkit, etc) should be not considered as dependent on someone "scratching an itch", or not. |
| rich0 wrote: | | In all community-based projects, they are whether you want them to be or not. They are CERTAINLY dependent on somebody scratching an itch with Gentoo. The only reason gcc works on Gentoo is because somebody considers maintaining it to be personally worth their while. |
rich0 ... alternately: there is no gentoo without gcc (or some form of compiler), you are making it a matter of semantics, but ok, someone thinks it worth their while, let us see how long that lasts if (as per the track of the discussion) they were to do as the please, without regard to it functioning (again, as per the track of the discussion).
| khayyam wrote: | | Developers do not have an out in saying that they have some right to do as they please, the reverse is true, they are agents of the community and the community has every right to expect they do the right thing for the community, not whatever they please. This is a common refrain in developer circles, and seems to be something inculcated as one is brought into the fold, however, it is entirely contrary (and therefore unsupportable) in terms of the charter's "four pillars". |
| rich0 wrote: | | Are you talking about the Gentoo Foundation charter? That doesn't really govern the distro, just the Foundation. The distro tends to run more by the social contract. |
That is incorrect, the charter is the legal document providing you with the "right" to do what you do, this thing you call "the distro" is bound by that charter. Additionally, that charter has not granted "the distro" a right to make contracts, and any such contract is as substantive as me calling myself inspector general and charging you (or any developer making this claim) with reneging on the terms and conditions of that charter. I too can act as an agent of the gentoo foundation as long as I stay within the grant provided by that charter.
| khayyam wrote: | | In any case, Gentoo developers are not anybody's agents but their own. We have principles that they're required to adhere to in order to remain developers, but there is no affirmative requirement for any Gentoo developer to contribute in any particular way at all. |
Again, that is incorrect, the charter provides you with the only grounds for doing anything, you are granted certain rights and are obliged to uphold the "four pillars" in order to maintain those rights. Also, the trustees are required to uphold the charter, that is, to make sure anyone acting as an agent of "the gentoo foundation" is operating by its terms (and so serving the "community")
| khayyam wrote: | | Besides, what are you going to do? Kick developers out for not working on the things you'd prefer that they work on? You can expect whatever you want, but you're powerless to actually enforce these expectations except by choosing to leave, which is of course your choice to make. Nobody forces anybody to use Gentoo. |
I have as much power granted to me as you (individually, and collectively) do, and so your asking what am I going to do might well be followed by a suit (directed at you, or the trustees) to do just that. You have no legal grounding in a court of law, all you have is a story about someone giving you commit privileges, I on the other hand, as inspector general, have a grant from the gentoo foundation, and that is a legally binding document. So, yes, I/we could have you kicked out, and we are not powerless to do that ... in fact, we are charged with upholding the charter, and so the "four pillars" (something which you have just publicly reneged).
best ... khay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rich0
Developer
Joined: 15 Sep 2002
Posts: 163
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 9:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| khayyam wrote: | | That is incorrect, the charter is the legal document providing you with the "right" to do what you do, this thing you call "the distro" is bound by that charter. Additionally, that charter has not granted "the distro" a right to make contracts, and any such contract is as substantive as me calling myself inspector general and charging you (or any developer making this claim) with reneging on the terms and conditions of that charter. I too can act as an agent of the gentoo foundation as long as I stay within the grant provided by that charter. |
Nobody needs permission to create a linux distro. Now, you might legally need permission from the Gentoo Foundation to call it Gentoo, but that's about the extent of it.
| khayyam wrote: | | asking what am I going to do might well be followed by a suit (directed at you, or the trustees) to do just that. You have no legal grounding in a court of law, all you have is a story about someone giving you commit privileges, I on the other hand, as inspector general, have a grant from the gentoo foundation, and that is a legally binding document. So, yes, I/we could have you kicked out, and we are not powerless to do that ... in fact, we are charged with upholding the charter, and so the "four pillars" (something which you have just publicly reneged). |
If you named me personally in a lawsuit I'd simply point out that I don't have any duty to deliver you anything, and I'm fairly confident it would be dismissed. The burden would be on you to show that somehow I was legally bound by some kind of contract to deliver something to you, and since I haven't received any kind of consideration from you that would be an uphill battle. Nor am I bound by any kind of obligation to the Foundation as an individual developer, since I have not been compensated to perform any kind of work.
Now, a Foundation member might be able to sue the Foundation itself or its Trustees for breach of fiduciary duties, but that doesn't extend to individual developers. I doubt anybody other than a Foundation member would have any standing to sue the Foundation over something like this. Maybe a donor could ask for their money back if they were misled. Otherwise you'd have a hard time showing harm.
And if that all happened, most likely the devs would just fork the distro and let you guys fight over the name Gentoo all day long. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| khayyam wrote: | | That is incorrect, the charter is the legal document providing you with the "right" to do what you do, this thing you call "the distro" is bound by that charter. Additionally, that charter has not granted "the distro" a right to make contracts, and any such contract is as substantive as me calling myself inspector general and charging you (or any developer making this claim) with reneging on the terms and conditions of that charter. I too can act as an agent of the gentoo foundation as long as I stay within the grant provided by that charter. |
| rich0 wrote: | | Nobody needs permission to create a linux distro. Now, you might legally need permission from the Gentoo Foundation to call it Gentoo, but that's about the extent of it. |
rich0 ... no, but you are operating under that name, therefore you are subject to the charter.
| khayyam wrote: | | asking what am I going to do might well be followed by a suit (directed at you, or the trustees) to do just that. You have no legal grounding in a court of law, all you have is a story about someone giving you commit privileges, I on the other hand, as inspector general, have a grant from the gentoo foundation, and that is a legally binding document. So, yes, I/we could have you kicked out, and we are not powerless to do that ... in fact, we are charged with upholding the charter, and so the "four pillars" (something which you have just publicly reneged). |
| rich0 wrote: | | If you named me personally in a lawsuit I'd simply point out that I don't have any duty to deliver you anything, and I'm fairly confident it would be dismissed. The burden would be on you to show that somehow I was legally bound by some kind of contract to deliver something to you, and since I haven't received any kind of consideration from you that would be an uphill battle. Nor am I bound by any kind of obligation to the Foundation as an individual developer, since I have not been compensated to perform any kind of work. |
It doesn't have anything to do with me, or any contract (implied or otherwise), you are subject to the charter and the terms laid out in that charter, until such a time as you stop operating under the name 'gentoo'. As you've said you're not subject to that charter then any court of law would immediately find you to be operating under fraudulent credentials.
| rich0 wrote: | | And if that all happened, most likely the devs would just fork the distro and let you guys fight over the name Gentoo all day long. |
Which, if translated into layman's terms, means: its our ball and we do what we want with it. Remember, the foundation was setup to protect gentoo against some entity doing just that. So, go ahead, fork, but you will no doubt end up in the same situation, or worse, and require a legal entity to operate under. However, until such as time as you do you are subject to the charter.
best ... khay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rich0
Developer
Joined: 15 Sep 2002
Posts: 163
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 10:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| khayyam wrote: | | rich0 wrote: | | Nobody needs permission to create a linux distro. Now, you might legally need permission from the Gentoo Foundation to call it Gentoo, but that's about the extent of it. |
rich0 ... no, but you are operating under that name, therefore you are subject to the charter. |
Yeah, charters don't work that way. They dictate the obligations corporations have towards their shareholders, not the obligations that shareholders have towards the corporation.
You'd have a hard time even finding a lawyer willing to file a lawsuit like this for you. Suffice it to say I'm not losing any sleep. But, if posting on the forum makes you feel happier feel free. It isn't like anybody reads it.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 11:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rich0 wrote: | | Nobody needs permission to create a linux distro. Now, you might legally need permission from the Gentoo Foundation to call it Gentoo, but that's about the extent of it. |
| khayyam wrote: | | rich0 ... no, but you are operating under that name, therefore you are subject to the charter. |
| rich0 wrote: | | Yeah, charters don't work that way. They dictate the obligations corporations have towards their shareholders, not the obligations that shareholders have towards the corporation. |
rich0 ... no, "a charter is the grant of authority or rights, stating that the granter formally recognises the prerogative of the recipient to exercise the rights specified". It stipulates what a 'sovereign' (in this case 'the gentoo foundation') grants (ie, certain rights, and obligations) a recipient (anyone operating under the name 'gentoo').
| rich0 wrote: | | You'd have a hard time even finding a lawyer willing to file a lawsuit like this for you. Suffice it to say I'm not losing any sleep. But, if posting on the forum makes you feel happier feel free. It isn't like anybody reads it. :) |
I don't need to, your position being untenable, if not outright contemptuous, I've pretty much got a slam-dunk in the court of public opinion. In any case, it's the trustee's who would need to worry, because it is they who have the burden of legal responsibility, whereas you are free of all consequences, and obligations (and so can have your cake ... and eat it too). As for your parting shots, yeah, it makes me feel happy to have you make an obvious jackass of yourself in public, but, yeah, its not like anyone is reading.
best ... khay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rich0
Developer
Joined: 15 Sep 2002
Posts: 163
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| khayyam wrote: | | rich0 wrote: | | Yeah, charters don't work that way. They dictate the obligations corporations have towards their shareholders, not the obligations that shareholders have towards the corporation. |
rich0 ... no, "a charter is the grant of authority or rights, stating that the granter formally recognises the prerogative of the recipient to exercise the rights specified". It stipulates what a 'sovereign' (in this case 'the gentoo foundation') grants (ie, certain rights, and obligations) a recipient (anyone operating under the name 'gentoo'). |
Exactly. A charter is created by the members of the Foundation (ie the Gentoo developers), to let the Foundation do certain things. It isn't created by the Foundation to govern the members.
| khayyam wrote: | | rich0 wrote: | | You'd have a hard time even finding a lawyer willing to file a lawsuit like this for you. Suffice it to say I'm not losing any sleep. But, if posting on the forum makes you feel happier feel free. It isn't like anybody reads it. |
I don't need to, your position being untenable, if not outright contemptuous, I've pretty much got a slam-dunk in the court of public opinion. |
IF? How can I possibly express more strongly how much contempt I have for you? You're incredibly entitled. And public opinion is of little consequence here. Gentoo is a product of the people who create it, not the people who talk about it.
| khayyam wrote: | | In any case, it's the trustee's who would need to worry, because it is they who have the burden of legal responsibility, whereas you are free of all consequences (and so can have your cake ... and eat it too). |
Me, and just about everybody else who actually contributes to Gentoo. Sure, you can try to ruin some Trustee's day with a lawsuit, and what is that going to accomplish?
Here's the thing: A bunch of people created this nice distro that you're apparently happy to use, and you didn't pay a dime for it. And yet you whine here ungratefully about all the things that those contributors owe you.
And then you wonder why more people aren't lining up to create nice things for you...
Sorry to burst your bubble, but this is just the reality of how any community-based project works. You can work within that reality, or you can try to dictate what you think it ought to be like, but the latter isn't likely to get you far. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony0945
Watchman
Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 5127
Location: Illinois, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2017 12:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rich0 wrote: | IF? How can I possibly express more strongly how much contempt I have for you? You're incredibly entitled. And public opinion is of little consequence here. Gentoo is a product of the people who create it, not the people who talk about it.
| khayyam wrote: | | In any case, it's the trustee's who would need to worry, because it is they who have the burden of legal responsibility, whereas you are free of all consequences (and so can have your cake ... and eat it too). |
Me, and just about everybody else who actually contributes to Gentoo. Sure, you can try to ruin some Trustee's day with a lawsuit, and what is that going to accomplish?
Here's the thing: A bunch of people created this nice distro that you're apparently happy to use, and you didn't pay a dime for it. And yet you whine here ungratefully about all the things that those contributors owe you.
And then you wonder why more people aren't lining up to create nice things for you...
Sorry to burst your bubble, but this is just the reality of how any community-based project works. You can work within that reality, or you can try to dictate what you think it ought to be like, but the latter isn't likely to get you far. |
How incredibly arrogant. You just confirmed all the complaints about devs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2017 12:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rich0 wrote: | | Yeah, charters don't work that way. They dictate the obligations corporations have towards their shareholders, not the obligations that shareholders have towards the corporation. |
| khayyam wrote: | | rich0 ... no, "a charter is the grant of authority or rights, stating that the granter formally recognises the prerogative of the recipient to exercise the rights specified". It stipulates what a 'sovereign' (in this case 'the gentoo foundation') grants (ie, certain rights, and obligations) a recipient (anyone operating under the name 'gentoo'). |
| rich0 wrote: | | Exactly. A charter is created by the members of the Foundation (ie the Gentoo developers), to let the Foundation do certain things. It isn't created by the Foundation to govern the members. |
rich0 ... again, no, there is a 'granter', the gentoo foundation (the only existent entity), and the 'recipient', that is, everyone operating under the term gentoo. This foundation was 'established', and the charter created, to govern this relationship.
| rich0 wrote: | | You'd have a hard time even finding a lawyer willing to file a lawsuit like this for you. Suffice it to say I'm not losing any sleep. But, if posting on the forum makes you feel happier feel free. It isn't like anybody reads it. :) |
| khayyam wrote: | | I don't need to, your position being untenable, if not outright contemptuous, I've pretty much got a slam-dunk in the court of public opinion. |
| rich0 wrote: | | IF? How can I possibly express more strongly how much contempt I have for you? You're incredibly entitled. And public opinion is of little consequence here. Gentoo is a product of the people who create it, not the people who talk about it. |
Not at all, I'm simply defending the principles laid out in the charter, you on the other hand have reneged. For you to now claim a right to make "gentoo" yours (your having "created it") is the contemptuous part.
| khayyam wrote: | | In any case, it's the trustee's who would need to worry, because it is they who have the burden of legal responsibility, whereas you are free of all consequences (and so can have your cake ... and eat it too). |
| rich0 wrote: | | Me, and just about everybody else who actually contributes to Gentoo. Sure, you can try to ruin some Trustee's day with a lawsuit, and what is that going to accomplish? |
As I said at the outset, its a belief that many developers hold, and seems to be inculcated as one enters the fold, but that doesn't make it right (and I think I've proved it isn't). As for the trustee's, I wouldn't do anything that might effect NeddySeagoon's day, the point in the above is rhetorical, it sets out to show who in fact is the central subject of gentoo ... the community, not the developers. Your counter argument shows that developer culture is out of sync with this fact and thinks it is subject to nothing bar serving its own interest. I've put that to rest because you can't have your cake and eat it too, if you want to be part of gentoo then you need to accept the conditions laid out in the "four pillars", and can't have it any other way.
| rich0 wrote: | | Here's the thing: A bunch of people created this nice distro that you're apparently happy to use, and you didn't pay a dime for it. And yet you whine here ungratefully about all the things that those contributors owe you. |
Wrong on so many levels: firstly I've contributed a whole lot of cash, and time, and as I said above users also "created" gentoo, they submit bug reports, support the distribution in the fora, via donations, etc, etc, etc ... you didn't create gentoo, and I have every right to "whine" (or, in non-loaded terms "criticise") what developers do. This view of things is part of the problem, and you have the audacity to call me "incredibly entitled".
| rich0 wrote: | | And then you wonder why more people aren't lining up to create nice things for you... |
Not if those "nice things" (which in itself is debatable) come at the cost of my having to sacrifice speaking my mind.
| rich0 wrote: | | Sorry to burst your bubble, but this is just the reality of how any community-based project works. You can work within that reality, or you can try to dictate what you think it ought to be like, but the latter isn't likely to get you far. |
Sorry to burst yours, but you've reneged on "for the community, by the community" remember, you developers are not subject to the charter, so you don't get to use it to underline the reality of how we work. As for "working within that reality", or not, similarly you don't get to dictate what that reality is, or to use such loaded admonitions to side step criticism.
best ... khay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rich0
Developer
Joined: 15 Sep 2002
Posts: 163
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2017 12:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| khayyam wrote: | | rich0 wrote: | | Exactly. A charter is created by the members of the Foundation (ie the Gentoo developers), to let the Foundation do certain things. It isn't created by the Foundation to govern the members. |
rich0 ... again, no, there is a 'granter', the gentoo foundation (the only existent entity), and the 'recipient', that is, everyone operating under the term gentoo. This foundation was 'established', and the charter created, to govern this relationship. |
Uh, before the charter was drafted, there was no Foundation. The owners exist before the corporation. The initial owners are the ones who create the charter of a corporation. It sets forth why they're pooling their resources to create the corporation in the first place.
In any case in practice nobody around here is beholden to you, so you'll probably get a lot further asking nicely than claiming some kind of property rights to the work of the developers... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rich0
Developer
Joined: 15 Sep 2002
Posts: 163
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2017 12:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tony0945 wrote: | | How incredibly arrogant. You just confirmed all the complaints about devs. |
Were they in dispute? Open source projects that aren't primarily corporate in nature tend to exist by and for the people who work on them.
Now, when the developers are all paid employees then things tend to work differently, and those projects tend to exist by and for the people who own the corporation that pays them.
Communities form around projects, not the other way around. You're here because you found Gentoo useful. If Gentoo weren't useful you'd go someplace else. There is nothing wrong with that. The beauty of open source is that this very simple relationship motivates people to create great works collaboratively. However, it is a collaboration among those who contribute. Some might choose to donate their time because they feel it will benefit others more than themselves, and there is nothing wrong with that. However, it is rarely the primary motivation, and there is a big difference between somebody choosing to donate their time to others and telling somebody that they must donate their time to others.
The Foundation is a bit different, since it is a non-profit/etc. The goals of the Foundation need not be exactly the same as those of the developers, though that can lead to tension. IMO it is one of the reasons why having a Foundation is problematic in the first place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jaglover
Watchman
Joined: 29 May 2005
Posts: 8291
Location: Saint Amant, Acadiana
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2017 1:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rich0 wrote: | | Exactly. A charter is created by the members of the Foundation (ie the Gentoo developers), to let the Foundation do certain things. It isn't created by the Foundation to govern the members. |
| khayyam wrote: | | rich0 ... again, no, there is a 'granter', the gentoo foundation (the only existent entity), and the 'recipient', that is, everyone operating under the term gentoo. This foundation was 'established', and the charter created, to govern this relationship. |
| rich0 wrote: | | Uh, before the charter was drafted, there was no Foundation. The owners exist before the corporation. The initial owners are the ones who create the charter of a corporation. It sets forth why they're pooling their resources to create the corporation in the first place. |
rich0 ... we're not trying to identify first cause, it is a question of what the charter establishes, who is subject to it, and in what way.
| rich0 wrote: | | In any case in practice nobody around here is beholden to you, so you'll probably get a lot further asking nicely than claiming some kind of property rights to the work of the developers... |
Surprise!! ... the runaround. When all else fails you can reach in the bag of rhetorical tricks and attempt to re-frame the argument in terms more conducive to its avoidance: 1). I never said anyone was beholden to me, only the community, 2). I have no need to "ask nicely" when the charter lays out both what can be expected of me, and what I can expect, 3). as I said, developers are not the only persons contributing labour, to state otherwise simply underlines the idea that theirs is the only labour with any value.
best ... khay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rich0
Developer
Joined: 15 Sep 2002
Posts: 163
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2017 1:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| khayyam wrote: | | 2). I have no need to "ask nicely" when the charter lays out both what can be expected of me, and what I can expect |
Well, I think this discussion makes it fairly obvious what you can expect... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2017 1:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| khayyam wrote: | | 2). I have no need to "ask nicely" when the charter lays out both what can be expected of me, and what I can expect. |
| rich0 wrote: | | Well, I think this discussion makes it fairly obvious what you can expect... :) |
rich0 ... yes, avoidance.
| rich0 wrote: | | However, it is a collaboration among those who contribute. |
Nonsense, when someone first starts using linux they are something of a burden to the community (asking questions, having various expectations, etc, etc), however the community still nurtures them with the expectation that they too will go on to contribute in some way, they are not excluded simply because they happen to be without the requisite skills to exchange/contribute. So, it is this that is the socio-economic backbone of FOSS, it is the support provided within the community as a whole that creates the collaborative nexus that fosters the collaborative process, not the level at which any particular actor is contributing. If this were the case then the barrier to entry would be so high as to prevent potential collaborators from getting a foot on the ladder.
best ... khay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr. T.
Guru
Joined: 26 Dec 2016
Posts: 477
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2017 7:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
I suggest to all of those who can not accept the choices of developers to stop and form a new community sharing their values and thoughts.
- Some people make softwares to do their tasks.
- Some people contribute to the development.
- Some people use these applications.
The above items are not dependent:
- The developers can not force people to contribute and use the applications.
- The reverse is true: the users and contributors can not force the developers to do the softwares.
If people want to fork Gentoo, at least, do it with kindness! Indeed, things are obvious enough: you have shared your thoughts and you do not agree!
Things are clear to some developers and things are clear to some users. No one has managed to find a compromise: continue in this way amounts to manipulation.
People who continue this way show their inability to make wise or honest decisions. Users who do not agree may reflect to know how to leave Gentoo: several people already "forked" Gentoo.
Ask developers to leave Gentoo is not fair because without developers we haven't softwares so we can't contribute or use softwares. I would add that to be fair, the people remaining in the "Gentoo community" can indicate the "forked community" as an alternative choice.
New edit: I hope people could avoid talking about metaphysics (idem if we use some sort of panlogism)! Otherwise, we will have to write a book! Thank you for reading my states of souls!
-- helecho -- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chithanh
Developer
Joined: 05 Aug 2006
Posts: 2158
Location: Berlin, Germany
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2017 9:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rich0 wrote: | | Gentoo could add 5000 more developers next week, and none of them could decide that they're interested in maintaining the particular package YOU are most interested in. |
I was not talking about adding random new developers.
I was talking about people coming with the interest of specifically helping an area where they saw that Gentoo needs improvement by sending a pull request, offering to become a developer, etc. And then attitudes or culture turning them away. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 54578
Location: 56N 3W
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
rich0,
| rich0 wrote: | | Uh, before the charter was drafted, there was no Foundation. The owners exist before the corporation. The initial owners are the ones who create the charter of a corporation. It sets forth why they're pooling their resources to create the corporation in the first place. |
The initial owner was Gentoo Technologies Inc. Gentoo has always had an incorporated body behind it. In the Gentoo Technologies Inc. days drobbins was both the owner of Gentoo Technologies Inc. and the Chief Architect of the distro. Devs didn't get a say in how Gentoo Technologies Inc. was operated. It was actually a for profit entity operated for the profit of drobbins.
_________________
Regards,
NeddySeagoon
Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naib
Watchman
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 6065
Location: Removed by Neddy
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chithanh wrote: | | rich0 wrote: | | Gentoo could add 5000 more developers next week, and none of them could decide that they're interested in maintaining the particular package YOU are most interested in. |
I was not talking about adding random new developers.
I was talking about people coming with the interest of specifically helping an area where they saw that Gentoo needs improvement by sending a pull request, offering to become a developer, etc. And then attitudes or culture turning them away. |
That wasn't the extrapolation.
rich0 is right. Say Gentoo added 1 new dev there is a high chance they will not work on a package of interest to me. Say Gentoo added 5000 dev's, there is a chance they will not work on a package of interest to me.
To a degree the number of new developers and package coverage is ALMOST independent (exceptfor the main and popular packages... ).
You are right that for gentoo to help us, we need to help gentoo. Take a package I am interested in. Tint2... I originally created the ebuild and submitted it as a bugreport & it got accepted and to a degree maintained. Upstream stopped being worked on for quite some time and silently moved hosting. I raised a bug report pointing out after 2years it is in active development & the host site has change. A *new* developer updated the ebuild.
I know this is anecdotal and the tint2 package is relatively trivial BUT a two way behavior works. Now the statement about users becoming developers... as one point i did consider but that good old ivory tower, to a degree, still exists.
_________________
| Quote: | | Removed by Chiitoo |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
asturm
Developer
Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 9280
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2017 1:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naib wrote: | | Now the statement about users becoming developers... as one point i did consider but that good old ivory tower, to a degree, still exists. |
Github access has removed much of the entry barrier. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rich0
Developer
Joined: 15 Sep 2002
Posts: 163
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2017 2:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| khayyam wrote: | | when someone first starts using linux they are something of a burden to the community (asking questions, having various expectations, etc, etc), however the community still nurtures them with the expectation that they too will go on to contribute in some way, they are not excluded simply because they happen to be without the requisite skills to exchange/contribute. |
Nobody is suggesting that new users be excluded from using Gentoo or that there be a ban on answering their questions.
However, I think it is incorrect to think that Gentoo's priorities will ever get decided by a vote, even a vote of the developers, let alone a vote of the end users. I'm on the Gentoo Council and I can't really dictate what people spend their time working on. The Foundation could to the extent that they could afford to hire people to do development work, but so could anybody else who has money. (Seriously, if you happen to be a billionaire just hire 25 people to spend the time to become Gentoo devs and you can advance any part of the distro you care to.)
This isn't about making Gentoo into some kind of exclusive organization/etc, or saying that Gentoo is already such a thing.
I'm just talking about the reality that Gentoo developers tend to scratch their own itches. Nobody is preventing them from scratching your itch, it just is the nature of things like this that people will put their own needs first.
The developers maintaining organizational control isn't about keeping out the unwashed masses. It is about ensuring that the organization stay grounded in this reality. If you put some crusader determined to impose their vision in charge of the Foundation, about all that will do is cause a fork, and that would be incredibly disruptive. Unless you literally hand that crusader enough money to replace all the existing volunteer effort, they're going to tend to be rejected by the volunteers if they don't share the same vision. And if they do share the same vision then there is no conflict in the first place, the existing developers would probably happily elect that crusader without any need to change how the organizational structures work.
That is why I think this stuff is important. The tail can't wag the dog. You can line up all the developers against the wall, but that still leaves you with nobody building the code you want them to build. It isn't about taking joy in telling users that they can't have the things they want. It is just being honest about the reality that if you want something sometimes you just have to be the one that makes it happen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Gentoo Chat
