| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2015 3:43 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Naib wrote: | | If the view of gentoo from the moderators is a meritocracy and anarchy then that is one label ... technocracy could be another as it is those with knowledge that govern. Either way it works ... mostly. |
Naib ... hehe, one small problem, those views are from persons who may, or may not, have the 'merit' to judge, or even have familiarity with, the terms of description. It's all well and good using the terms 'meritocracy' and 'anarchy' but what do these terms mean exactly, and should our 'governance' be constructed around such terms? Meritocracy and technocracy to me are subsets of oligarchy (governance by the few), and besides being contrary to our stated Charter, constitute the cause behind our arrival at the situation in which the 'community' isn't served. So, as I said above wrt "mistaking cause for effect", any call for a 'president' seems to me entirely the result of a democratic deficit and result of the failures of oligarchy, rather than a solution to the communities problems (which to me are best addressed by 'the many', even if instituting this has difficulties). That is in fact the 'anarchic' (or radical democratic) model 'the many' acting in concert, and toward a common/mutual benefit. Its the model most suited to our stated aim of 'by the community, for the community' and in reality the most suited to dealing with the 'bad'. The first problem is of course to recognise the problem ... and so the first principle is to assert the 'community' as the defacto mechanism of governance (contrary to any rights claimed by developers). The second problem is how to put these mechanism in place ... but that isn't such a great hurdle because we are already operating in a collaborative and ad-hoc manner in many regards (at least where the assertion of 'the community' is made), and of course we have the mechanisms of discussion, etc, to establish what constitutes 'harm'. The biggest hurdle seems to be the conflict surrounding certain interests, developers v. users, developers v. developers, gentoo v. upstream, systemd v. sanity, etc, but much of that conflict could be lessened (at least internally) if 'the community' was placed centre stage as at least the principle of 'common/mutual benefit' would provide something of the correct focus. It seems that the major opposition against this is "how do we then decide", but this is far less of an issue, or danger, (for the community) than if we leave this to a president or the developers to decide. As I've said, we already do much without a central controller, and we could do more because many of our problems (like holding people to account) are in fact the result of a lack of a democratic power and mandate (and by that I don't mean, elections). All of this would be exacerbated by a president, and if developers want such a system they should fork and/or join funtoo ;)
| Naib wrote: | | Dev's are free to work on what they want without some vastly restrictive mandate. If a dev wants to work on one package and keep it well maintained w.r.t. gentoo tree so be it. But this anarchistic model has weaknesses. Look at pre-exherbo... how long did it take to get dev's out. Look at now when gentoo dev's push their own agenda at the expense of the wider community. Or developers that tell users not to raise bugs against their packages (yes I have had that...) |
This "doing what they want" is not necessarily anarchic, at least I wouldn't describe it as such, its more in line with the 'accustomed habit of taking man for our rule' and subsequently asking why such a man's design for the bridge of straw failed when load was applied. An action isn't tout court serving some purpose, or the communities purpose, simply because someone thinks it so ... there are criteria that can be applied.
| Naib wrote: | What about a referendum from the wider community? have Gentoo carry on operating akin to a parliamentary system with an executive branch in the council (and an herd's represented by their local team - one or many...) But take libAV where even now it is still in the state it is, why not have user's register for voting (gpg key or other means to ensure votes are not stuffed...)
Then if a referendum is called, say by the council due to wider concerns... the community votes are tallied and they contribute to 50% of the overall vote while the remaining 50% based upon the dev's vote. |
With regard to any referendum I would say fiat justitia ruat caelum, meaning let the entire community decide with no distinction made between any part. If users go against the better judgement of developers then its they who suffer, the idea being to check on both sides (developers being too knowing and users being too ignorant). The results of any referendum should reflect the entire communities idea of what the right course of action is, even if it might give users or developers cause to feel that they are being short changed. Also, such referendums should only be a last course of action (as mostly democracy should take case of itself ... if not unnecessarily hindered).
best ... khay |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
John R. Graham
Administrator
Joined: 08 Mar 2005
Posts: 10591
Location: Somewhere over Atlanta, Georgia
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2015 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| khayyam wrote: | | John ... there are two problems with this, firstly the logical one: its implicit because any rule to the contrary is a contradiction. Secondly, have you ever looked at the laws of your jurisdiction, or the laws applied to, say, contract or labour law? If you have did the subject become clear to you, or were you forced abandon your research given the density, or sheer volume, of material? If you had to defend yourself in a court of law (pro se) do you think you understand the procedure well enough to make a good case in your defence, and if so why can't you act as council for others in the same, or similar, predicament. Let me give you some legal advice, and so break the law (yes, offering legal advice without being a member of the bar is illegal in many states): turn up to court on time! |
So, your objections to my statement are that it's redundant and that law is complex. Surely one who has used so many words to express the latter cannot reasonably object to the former. Furthermore, I'm not particularly worried about the complexity you reference because the overwhelming majority of such law is not jurisdictionally relevant (nor particularly topically relevant) to our Gentoo Community.
| khayyam wrote: | | So, going back to Cicero above "law must be in agreement with natural law", that means relate to and be comprehensible for those who at whom it directed. Cicero also wrote that the extent of a tyranny can be gauged in the number of laws it has codified. Now, as your located in the US you can perhaps answer me a simple question, are you a citizen or a Citizen? (yes, there are two distinct definitions). |
I think you're arguing both sides here. First you caution me regarding all the incomprehensible pitfalls of the law that my simple statement may be prey to and then you interpret Cicero as stating that laws must be simple and comprehensible.
Regarding your question, since the US Constitution makes no such distinction, my answer is that there's no jurisdictional relevance to your question, thus it is meaningless.
| khayyam wrote: | | John R. Graham wrote: | | ... Although I'm under no illusions that it would solve everything, I do believe it would help. |
Someone probably thought the same when authoring GLEP 39... |
I just want to check on something. Is it your contention that GLEP 39 did no good whatsoever in the management vacuum left by drobbins' departure? Because I think I would disagree with that as well.
| khayyam wrote: | | ... but anyhow, I don't think anyone is arguing about the right or wrong of such an idea, what this seems to be about is the basic idea of "what gentoo is", and in who's benefit it is operated. |
Yes, I think that's true, although not complete.
- John
_________________
I can confirm that I have received between 0 and 499 National Security Letters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2015 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John R. Graham wrote: | | khayyam wrote: | | John ... there are two problems with this, firstly the logical one: its implicit because any rule to the contrary is a contradiction. Secondly, have you ever looked at the laws of your jurisdiction, or the laws applied to, say, contract or labour law? If you have did the subject become clear to you, or were you forced abandon your research given the density, or sheer volume, of material? If you had to defend yourself in a court of law (pro se) do you think you understand the procedure well enough to make a good case in your defence, and if so why can't you act as council for others in the same, or similar, predicament. Let me give you some legal advice, and so break the law (yes, offering legal advice without being a member of the bar is illegal in many states): turn up to court on time! |
So, your objections to my statement are that it's redundant and that law is complex. Surely one who has used so many words to express the latter cannot reasonably object to the former. Furthermore, I'm not particularly worried about the complexity you reference because the overwhelming majority of such law is not jurisdictionally relevant (nor particularly topically relevant) to our Gentoo Community. |
John ... no, I didn't say it was redundant, but I personally didn't need the fact pointed out to me because the charter, code of conduct, and other statements ('about', etc) all made this perfectly clear, and so I don't think developers claiming otherwise is about 'lack of clarity'. As for complexity, I provided the additional comment because it highlighted the problem ... did it obfuscate the nature of law/rules or enlighten (even if only sightly)? Also, your confusing what I write with how I might frame a rule, so I said too much (perhaps) ... may I be cursed with many such sins.
| John R. Graham wrote: | | khayyam wrote: | | So, going back to Cicero above "law must be in agreement with natural law", that means relate to and be comprehensible for those who at whom it directed. Cicero also wrote that the extent of a tyranny can be gauged in the number of laws it has codified. Now, as your located in the US you can perhaps answer me a simple question, are you a citizen or a Citizen? (yes, there are two distinct definitions). |
I think you're arguing both sides here. First you caution me regarding all the incomprehensible pitfalls of the law that my simple statement may be prey to and then you interpret Cicero as stating that laws must be simple and comprehensible. |
That wasn't the case at all ... and I stated "I don't think anyone is arguing about the right or wrong of such an idea". Its simply the fact that regardless of our problem (with law, rules, etc) we don't need to provide a law which states "you are obliged to obey the law" ... that would be redundant. In terms of gentoo the "acting together for common/mutual benefit" is implicit in our being a community ("for the community, by the community", etc). The point I was making is that often times people (not specifically you, but we have many examples) get in such a tizzy about such things they forget what such laws are intended for, and you end up with documents like many of those of labour, and contract law ... or GLEP 39.
| John R. Graham wrote: | | Regarding your question, since the US Constitution makes no such distinction, my answer is that there's no jurisdictional relevance to your question, thus it is meaningless. |
You do realise that the US constitution is simply a piece of paper ... and that there are Federal Laws which states otherwise to your claim? I won't tell you how this came to be as it would only obfuscate matters ... which are essentially meaningless ;)
| John R. Graham wrote: | | khayyam wrote: | | John R. Graham wrote: | | ... Although I'm under no illusions that it would solve everything, I do believe it would help. |
Someone probably thought the same when authoring GLEP 39... |
I just want to check on something. Is it your contention that GLEP 39 did no good whatsoever in the management vacuum left by drobbins' departure? Because I think I would disagree with that as well. |
My comment was really about clarity. I re-read the document after it was brought up and thought that though it was obviously targeting a certain problem it was something of a quick fix, and difficult to understand ... its context, structure, etc, seemed to me less of set of rules than a cooking recipe.
| John R. Graham wrote: | | khayyam wrote: | | ... but anyhow, I don't think anyone is arguing about the right or wrong of such an idea, what this seems to be about is the basic idea of "what gentoo is", and in who's benefit it is operated. |
Yes, I think that's true, although not complete. |
Sorry ... what's not complete?
best ... khay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2015 8:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't have an issue with GLEP 39, I just think we need the true Code of Conduct alongside it, the one that stipulated the Proctors as the means of enforcement, that was actually agreed by the whole Community; in a process that took some 9 months, of which I recall 6 took quite a lot of discussion time.
The remaining 3 were the developers backtracking on it, and coming up with a bulshytt excuse as to why they didn't have to do what they all said they would. ("We don't need all these rules, do we boys?")
I also believe that legislation (or rules of behaviour) should be simple; I concur with the Plain English Campaign on that issue. I'd very much like to see Gentoo sign up to that, fwtw. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yngwin
Retired Dev
Joined: 19 Dec 2002
Posts: 4572
Location: Suzhou, China
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2015 10:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| khayyam wrote: | | yngwin wrote: | | khayyam wrote: | | Yes, because you refuse to see them as being implicit in "acting together for common/mutual benefit" ... if I hadn't made this point on a number of occasions I could perhaps overlook that, but you seem dead set on asserting the right to "do what you (and other developers) want". |
This is not about asserting my rights. Forget for a moment that I am developer. I am simply describing the system as I observe it (from within, like a cultural anthropologist who is participating in the culture he is studying). |
yngwin ... so, when you say "gentoo is not a democracy", or "developers do what they want", these do not involve any judgement on your part, they are purely descriptive? |
Yes indeed, purely descriptive.
| Quote: | | If this is the case then what could it possibly mean when you say "you are completely wrong" to my statement that "developers are only agents of the community, acting for the benefit of that community"? Is that similarly descriptive? |
Yes indeed, purely descriptive.
| Quote: | | It's either the assertion of a right for developers to do what they want or constraint via their implicit agreement with the community in "acting together for common/mutual benefit". So, which is it? |
I don't understand the question.
| khayyam wrote: | | yngwin wrote: | | That said, I do believe that the current mix of meritocracy and anarchy is not necessarily in the best interest of Gentoo. But it is extremely hard to change the organizational culture. I believe we need a more defined vision. And in my opinion a benevolent dictator model (more or less how Gentoo started, and how the Linux kernel and Slackware still work) would be better. We would get more things done, and deal with toxic people faster. |
This is an example of mistaking cause for effect, but ok, you can have your "benevolent dictatorship" but only if you dispense with "for the community, by the community" and forsake the "cooperative model [that] will remain valid for Gentoo's entire lifespan". |
The document that you quote describes the Gentoo Foundation, which is a separate entity. That same document states:
| Gentoo Foundation Charter wrote: | | [This document] does not describe the goals of the Gentoo project and does not contain any policies about the Gentoo development process. |
In fact, as I pointed out before, we need to look at GLEP 39 to see how Gentoo is developed. And the only time that document mentions the community, is to state that it can be ignored:
| GLEP39 wrote: | | Note that this GLEP does not provide for a way for the community at large to block a new project, even if the comments are wholly negative. |
Now of course we have limitations set by the Council, QA, ComRel that limit the possible harm. But it also needs to be said that those bodies move at a glacial pace.
Now to move on from description to my personal opinion, I believe it would be beneficial to codify that Gentoo developers should work for the benefit of the community (tho it may be hard to judge what is that benefit). But even more than that, I believe we should have a stronger global vision of what Gentoo is and where we want to take it in the future. What are our goals? How do we decide whether we are successful or not? Do we implement new features because they are part of an overarching vision, or just "because we can"?
_________________
"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves." - Abraham Lincoln
Free Culture | Defective by Design | EFF |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2015 1:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| yngwin wrote: | | khayyam wrote: | | It's either the assertion of a right for developers to do what they want or constraint via their implicit agreement with the community in "acting together for common/mutual benefit". So, which is it? |
I don't understand the question. |
yngwin ... you, and other developers, are part of "the gentoo community", right? So, are you, along with "the community", "acting together for common/mutual benefit", or does your "doing what you want" provide the "right" to do otherwise? You've asserted that I am "wrong", developers "do what they want", if this is the case then this "acting together" is negated, because there is no "acting together" if one party "does what they want". Further, this is an assertion on your part, so not "purely descriptive".
| yngwin wrote: | | khayyam wrote: | | [...] but ok, you can have your "benevolent dictatorship" but only if you dispense with "for the community, by the community" and forsake the "cooperative model [that] will remain valid for Gentoo's entire lifespan". |
The document that you quote describes the Gentoo Foundation, which is a separate entity. That same document states: [This document] does not describe the goals of the Gentoo project and does not contain any policies about the Gentoo development process. |
The Gentoo Foundation may be a separate entity but when it states "Gentoo lives for the community, by the community" this means "The Gentoo Foundation lives for the community, by the community"? Your bending credulity.
| yngwin wrote: | In fact, as I pointed out before, we need to look at GLEP 39 to see how Gentoo is developed. And the only time that document mentions the community, is to state that it can be ignored:
| GLEP39 wrote: | | Note that this GLEP does not provide for a way for the community at large to block a new project, even if the comments are wholly negative. |
|
OK, so developers wrote their "out", they should do us the courtesy of re-writing the charter so that no one is in any doubt about what is meant by "by the community, for the community".
| yngwin wrote: | | Now of course we have limitations set by the Council, QA, ComRel that limit the possible harm. But it also needs to be said that those bodies move at a glacial pace. |
haha ... "limit harm", but you can't establish what that harm is because you've abolished the very idea of the "community" toward which such a protection is afforded.
| yngwin wrote: | | Now to move on from description to my personal opinion, I believe it would be beneficial to codify that Gentoo developers should work for the benefit of the community (tho it may be hard to judge what is that benefit). But even more than that, I believe we should have a stronger global vision of what Gentoo is and where we want to take it in the future. What are our goals? How do we decide whether we are successful or not? Do we implement new features because they are part of an overarching vision, or just "because we can"? |
Again, the assertion of "beneficial" is already there, it's implicit in "for the community", the problem is not the 'lack of clarity' or it having not been 'codified', its the wilful ignoring of this fact and the assertion to the contrary by developers to "do what they want". As to it being "hard to judge", well, I'm sure your president will have no problem making such judgements and so the whole issue of such difficulties will be greatly reduced ... gone, along with the community and the "cooperative model [...] valid for Gentoo's entire lifespan."
best ... khay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
krinn
Watchman
Joined: 02 May 2003
Posts: 7470
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2015 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GLEP39 wrote: | | Note that this GLEP does not provide for a way for the community at large to block a new project, even if the comments are wholly negative. |
Yeah, but note that GLEP39 limitation to community only concern a dev project.
And a dev project isn't Gentoo.
It just mean even if everyone think project X is dumb, nobody could stop a gentoo dev to work on his project X.
It doesn't grant project X any rights on Gentoo still. The non blocking rule is only limited to the project itself, not to Gentoo.
When he wants add project X to Gentoo, the "do project X is good for the community?" rule is back.
Just like libav (well kindof as libav is not even a gentoo project), nobody says luca should stop working on libav.
But adding libav as default in gentoo is another issue and the question is then : "do libav as default is better for the community than having ffmpeg as default?". It doesn't mean libav sucks, it even doesn't mean libav is not as good or even less good than ffmpeg, it just mean if ffmpeg is better than libav as default, this should be the one used.
This to show the meritocracy have no place in it, as even the best implementation shouldn't be use if it doesn't gave the best to the community. You don't judge the value of the libav, you judge the value it gives to Gentoo.
Just like if everyone agree (it's a supposition!) that glibc is the best libc to use, it doesn't mean glibc will be the best libc to use on embed system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yngwin
Retired Dev
Joined: 19 Dec 2002
Posts: 4572
Location: Suzhou, China
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2015 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| khayyam wrote: | | yngwin wrote: | | khayyam wrote: | | It's either the assertion of a right for developers to do what they want or constraint via their implicit agreement with the community in "acting together for common/mutual benefit". So, which is it? |
I don't understand the question. |
yngwin ... you, and other developers, are part of "the gentoo community", right? So, are you, along with "the community", "acting together for common/mutual benefit", or does your "doing what you want" provide the "right" to do otherwise? You've asserted that I am "wrong", developers "do what they want", if this is the case then this "acting together" is negated, because there is no "acting together" if one party "does what they want". |
Gentoo developers have the right to form projects within Gentoo that work at cross-purposes with other Gentoo projects. They do not always act together, and are not required to do so. This right is explicitly granted by GLEP39.
| khayyam wrote: | | yngwin wrote: | | khayyam wrote: | | [...] but ok, you can have your "benevolent dictatorship" but only if you dispense with "for the community, by the community" and forsake the "cooperative model [that] will remain valid for Gentoo's entire lifespan". |
The document that you quote describes the Gentoo Foundation, which is a separate entity. That same document states: [This document] does not describe the goals of the Gentoo project and does not contain any policies about the Gentoo development process. |
The Gentoo Foundation may be a separate entity but when it states "Gentoo lives for the community, by the community" this means "The Gentoo Foundation lives for the community, by the community"? |
Yes. I see no such thing in the documents that define Gentoo the distribution. The Foundation is a separate entity that has a supportive role (mostly legal matters, such as donations and protecting our trademark). To see what Gentoo is, look at GLEP39, and our Social Contract. They contain no such "by the community, for the community" language.
| khayyam wrote: | | yngwin wrote: | In fact, as I pointed out before, we need to look at GLEP 39 to see how Gentoo is developed. And the only time that document mentions the community, is to state that it can be ignored:
| GLEP39 wrote: | | Note that this GLEP does not provide for a way for the community at large to block a new project, even if the comments are wholly negative. |
|
OK, so developers wrote their "out", they should do us the courtesy of re-writing the charter so that no one is in any doubt about what is meant by "by the community, for the community". |
That charter governs the Gentoo Foundation, which has nothing to do with how Gentoo is developed.
| khayyam wrote: | | yngwin wrote: | | Now to move on from description to my personal opinion, I believe it would be beneficial to codify that Gentoo developers should work for the benefit of the community (tho it may be hard to judge what is that benefit). But even more than that, I believe we should have a stronger global vision of what Gentoo is and where we want to take it in the future. What are our goals? How do we decide whether we are successful or not? Do we implement new features because they are part of an overarching vision, or just "because we can"? |
Again, the assertion of "beneficial" is already there, it's implicit in "for the community", the problem is not the 'lack of clarity' or it having not been 'codified', its the wilful ignoring of this fact and the assertion to the contrary by developers to "do what they want". |
Euhm, no. Which of the 4 different approaches to multilib is most beneficial to the community? Is supporting systemd beneficial to the community? Is deprecating herds beneficial to the community? And so on. There are many issues which are controversial, or simply not clear.
_________________
"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves." - Abraham Lincoln
Free Culture | Defective by Design | EFF |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yngwin
Retired Dev
Joined: 19 Dec 2002
Posts: 4572
Location: Suzhou, China
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2015 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| krinn wrote: | | GLEP39 wrote: | | Note that this GLEP does not provide for a way for the community at large to block a new project, even if the comments are wholly negative. |
Yeah, but note that GLEP39 limitation to community only concern a dev project.
And a dev project isn't Gentoo.
It just mean even if everyone think project X is dumb, nobody could stop a gentoo dev to work on his project X.
It doesn't grant project X any rights on Gentoo still. The non blocking rule is only limited to the project itself, not to Gentoo.
When he wants add project X to Gentoo, the "do project X is good for the community?" rule is back. |
No, you misunderstand. Read GLEP39. It talks about projects within Gentoo.
For example, the Gentoo Documentation Project was against using a wiki for many years. But we also had a popular third-party wiki, which met with some difficulties. I then took the initiative to form a Gentoo Wiki Project. The Gentoo Documentation Project could not stop that, as stated in GLEP39.
Another example: we have historically had different approaches to doing multilib (running 32bits applications on amd64). Multilib portage had support, but was slow to develop. Suddenly another developer started doing multilib through eclasses. Of course there was a clash of opinions. These were projects that did not work together. Neither was the community asked which one they preferred.
_________________
"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves." - Abraham Lincoln
Free Culture | Defective by Design | EFF |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
krinn
Watchman
Joined: 02 May 2003
Posts: 7470
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2015 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| yngwin wrote: | | These were projects that did not work together. Neither was the community asked which one they preferred. |
GLEP 39 indeed doesn't define if community should be query. But GLEP 39 replace GLEP 4 it doesn't remove or obsolete other GLEP.
Let's see GLEP1
| Quote: | | We intend GLEPs to be the primary mechanisms for proposing significant new features, for collecting community input on an issue, and for documenting the design decisions that have gone into Gentoo Linux. |
Because you (not you, all devs) are living in your meritocracy oligarchic world for many years, you think it is how the world is.
But it's not, community should had been asked, as GLEP1 state.
If you don't ask the community, you just don't respect the rules. Of course we have rules, but no user could enforce them, hence why dev don't care about any rules.
How could we appeal if the community think the move was bad: GLEP39 added Council, own by devs, to fill the hole that no dev could appeal another dev decision.
But GLEP39 forget (yeah, forget, because i'm diplomatic) the community is not only made with devs. And Council is not the solution for the community, only for devs.
So, until we (the community of users+devs) have our entity to process issues, indeed it's an oligarchy, but not set by rules, but set as all devs just walk on rules, and of course no dev is willing to remember another dev about a rule he himself don't really wish to obey.
I'm of course not speaking about Wiki vs Gentoo doc issue, as i don't see why Gentoo doc and wiki couldn't be use together. I don't see why anyone would feel the need to query the community if a project could only gave benefits to the community ; so no issue there. But if you have two project against each other and one should be use or the other, you have an issue, and community should be query to tell what would be the best for itself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2015 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| yngwin wrote: | | khayyam wrote: | | yngwin wrote: | | khayyam wrote: | | It's either the assertion of a right for developers to do what they want or constraint via their implicit agreement with the community in "acting together for common/mutual benefit". So, which is it? |
I don't understand the question. |
yngwin ... you, and other developers, are part of "the gentoo community", right? So, are you, along with "the community", "acting together for common/mutual benefit", or does your "doing what you want" provide the "right" to do otherwise? You've asserted that I am "wrong", developers "do what they want", if this is the case then this "acting together" is negated, because there is no "acting together" if one party "does what they want". |
Gentoo developers have the right to form projects within Gentoo that work at cross-purposes with other Gentoo projects. They do not always act together, and are not required to do so. This right is explicitly granted by GLEP39. |
yngwin ... that isn't the question. Obviously developers are granted the right to "do things", you are conflating this with the purpose of that work, which is, as I said, "to serve the community". You have said I'm "wrong", they do not serve the community, they "do what they want" ... the point being is that there is an overarching reason behind that work which is only met by serving the community, not by developers doing what they want. You seem to think that GLEP39 provides developers some "right" which is in fact closed to them ... hence my showing you it was a binary proposition, and that by answering on the side of "developers rights" you are asserting that right over and above that of the community being served. Now, you said you didn't understand the question, and though you've asserted that right throughout I've given you the benefit of the doubt and asked that it be made explicit, and as you clearly stated "this is not about [you] asserting [that] right" then what is it?
| yngwin wrote: | | khayyam wrote: | | yngwin wrote: | | khayyam wrote: | | [...] but ok, you can have your "benevolent dictatorship" but only if you dispense with "for the community, by the community" and forsake the "cooperative model [that] will remain valid for Gentoo's entire lifespan". |
The document that you quote describes the Gentoo Foundation, which is a separate entity. That same document states: [This document] does not describe the goals of the Gentoo project and does not contain any policies about the Gentoo development process. |
The Gentoo Foundation may be a separate entity but when it states "Gentoo lives for the community, by the community" this means "The Gentoo Foundation lives for the community, by the community"? |
Yes. I see no such thing in the documents that define Gentoo the distribution. The Foundation is a separate entity that has a supportive role (mostly legal matters, such as donations and protecting our trademark). To see what Gentoo is, look at GLEP39, and our Social Contract. They contain no such "by the community, for the community" language. |
So the charter is a grant between the Gentoo Foundation and whom? What "community" do they refer to? As legal and financial guardians what is it they have sovereignty over? The nature of their statements wrt "gentoo" extend no further than themselves as a entity?
As for the "social contract", yes, no mention is made of "the community", the only parties mentioned are "we" and "the Free Software Community". So, your stating that the "we" in the contract refers to developers (and that developers have some legal authority to make contracts) and not The Gentoo Foundation (the only only legitimate authority capable of making any such contract).
Can you show me where it is that gentoo developers were provided a grant to make contracts, rules, or conduct business on behalf of the gentoo foundation?
Oh, and btw, the 'developer' refered to in the charter doesn't refer to you, it refers to a developer acting under the aegis of the gentoo foundation ... a seperate entity.
| yngwin wrote: | | khayyam wrote: | | yngwin wrote: | In fact, as I pointed out before, we need to look at GLEP 39 to see how Gentoo is developed. And the only time that document mentions the community, is to state that it can be ignored:
| GLEP39 wrote: | | Note that this GLEP does not provide for a way for the community at large to block a new project, even if the comments are wholly negative. |
|
OK, so developers wrote their "out", they should do us the courtesy of re-writing the charter so that no one is in any doubt about what is meant by "by the community, for the community". |
That charter governs the Gentoo Foundation, which has nothing to do with how Gentoo is developed. |
So tell me, as an authority what is it they have sovereignty over? What other 'legal' body is there that has power to make contracts, provide rights, etc? If as you say its entirely a matter of these statements being directed at itself, where then does the authority of GLEP39 come from?
| yngwin wrote: | | khayyam wrote: | | yngwin wrote: | | Now to move on from description to my personal opinion, I believe it would be beneficial to codify that Gentoo developers should work for the benefit of the community (tho it may be hard to judge what is that benefit). But even more than that, I believe we should have a stronger global vision of what Gentoo is and where we want to take it in the future. What are our goals? How do we decide whether we are successful or not? Do we implement new features because they are part of an overarching vision, or just "because we can"? |
Again, the assertion of "beneficial" is already there, it's implicit in "for the community", the problem is not the 'lack of clarity' or it having not been 'codified', its the wilful ignoring of this fact and the assertion to the contrary by developers to "do what they want". |
Euhm, no. Which of the 4 different approaches to multilib is most beneficial to the community? Is supporting systemd beneficial to the community? Is deprecating herds beneficial to the community? And so on. There are many issues which are controversial, or simply not clear. |
Oh, I see ... developers, or your benevolent dictator, are best placed to make those decisions, and of course whatever decisions they make will obviously reflect the best interest of the community as a whole. If you want me to answer such questions then I'm willing to consider whatevers on the table in terms of options ... except your wanting to usurp my right to do so and turn what is a process of decision making into a rational for authoritarian governance.
best ... khay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2015 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| yngwin wrote: | | Yes. I see no such thing in the documents that define Gentoo the distribution. The Foundation is a separate entity that has a supportive role (mostly legal matters, such as donations and protecting our trademark). To see what Gentoo is, look at GLEP39, and our Social Contract. They contain no such "by the community, for the community" language. |
Actually that is incorrect; the Gentoo Foundation is the only part that has any independent, externally-recognised existence.
The Council only exists by convention; it has no standing in law, only what the Foundation chooses to defer to it.
You simply cannot pretend that Gentoo is this nebulous thing that no-one defines, apart from what the developers agree. The developers have no standing in law, either.
Obviously developers come from the userbase (you cannot be a developer if you aren't already a user, or prepared to become one though personally I wouldn't allow that weasel get-out) and the Foundation is designed to support their work; but only because the users want to use the distro.
Take away the requirement that you fulfil user needs, in common with every other software project in the world, and you end up with a clique of developers no-one wants to talk to, and yaf distro started up in the corner.
Still, they can all "do what they want" so that's all right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2015 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| yngwin wrote: | | Another example: we have historically had different approaches to doing multilib (running 32bits applications on amd64). Multilib portage had support, but was slow to develop. Suddenly another developer started doing multilib through eclasses. Of course there was a clash of opinions. These were projects that did not work together. Neither was the community asked which one they preferred. |
Which is where you come a cropper: that's precisely the kind of fsck-up that posting to the dev ML, which is open to all precisely so that more experienced input can be sought, is meant to alleviate. Only devs make damn certain that it's their list, and quietly ignore shitty behaviour, as if that makes them professionally respectful of each other, so nice way of driving off any informed criticism (who's got time for that crap?)
And yeah, I'm saying the current multilib approach is a fsck-up. mgorny seems to have been driven insane by his masochistic insistence on lol-bashish, in line with the dumbass Gentoo "house-style". (I had to ignore him a while back, and judging by the other side of the convi in #-portage, he's still not very well.)
His bash has got better, but he's hampered by that; still, hopefully he knows what I meant about nullglob now. He's certainly done enough unnecessarily tricksy-bash to come across the issue, by now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yngwin
Retired Dev
Joined: 19 Dec 2002
Posts: 4572
Location: Suzhou, China
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2015 9:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| krinn wrote: | Let's see GLEP1
| Quote: | | We intend GLEPs to be the primary mechanisms for proposing significant new features, for collecting community input on an issue, and for documenting the design decisions that have gone into Gentoo Linux. |
Because you (not you, all devs) are living in your meritocracy oligarchic world for many years, you think it is how the world is.
But it's not, community should had been asked, as GLEP1 state. |
The community is asked, every time a new GLEP is proposed (which is what GLEP1 is about). And most other decisions as well. Everyone is welcome to discuss development issues on the gentoo-dev mailing list.
| krinn wrote: | | So, until we (the community of users+devs) have our entity to process issues, |
We do. We have bugzilla and the gentoo-dev mailing list. And if that fails, there is ComRel, and ultimately the Council.
_________________
"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves." - Abraham Lincoln
Free Culture | Defective by Design | EFF |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yngwin
Retired Dev
Joined: 19 Dec 2002
Posts: 4572
Location: Suzhou, China
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2015 9:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| khayyam wrote: | | Can you show me where it is that gentoo developers were provided a grant to make contracts, rules, or conduct business on behalf of the gentoo foundation? |
You seem confused about the role of the Gentoo Foundation and its relationship with how Gentoo is developed. Read that document carefully again. I can't tell you much more than that, especially since I'm not a lawyer, and you seem to want to move this into legal territory.
| khayyam wrote: | | yngwin wrote: | | khayyam wrote: | | Again, the assertion of "beneficial" is already there, it's implicit in "for the community", the problem is not the 'lack of clarity' or it having not been 'codified', its the wilful ignoring of this fact and the assertion to the contrary by developers to "do what they want". |
Euhm, no. Which of the 4 different approaches to multilib is most beneficial to the community? Is supporting systemd beneficial to the community? Is deprecating herds beneficial to the community? And so on. There are many issues which are controversial, or simply not clear. |
Oh, I see ... developers, or your benevolent dictator, are best placed to make those decisions, and of course whatever decisions they make will obviously reflect the best interest of the community as a whole. |
No, I'm just pointing out that it is not always clear what is in the best interest of the community. You said "the problem is not the 'lack of clarity'", which is what I'm disagreeing with here.
Anyway, I'm done here. I don't think I can accomplish more by further participating in this discussion. I have bugs to handle.
_________________
"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves." - Abraham Lincoln
Free Culture | Defective by Design | EFF |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 54453
Location: 56N 3W
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2015 10:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
yngwin,
Its interesting that you cite ... the Gentoo Foundation is a separate entity ...
That devs share this belief gives me, as a Foundation trustee, nightmares.
The reality is that the Foundation is legally Gentoo, all of it. When/if Gentoo devs mess up to the point of legal action being taken against Gentoo, its the Foundation thats in the firing line and devs who are not Foundation members, personally. See the Foundation bylaws.
Like it or not, in the eyes of the law, the Foundation is Gentoo.
From the outside looking in, everything Gentoo answers to the Foundation, so ... the Gentoo Foundation is a separate entity ... is both incorrect and meaningless, its just a fallacy that's perpretrated inside of Gentoo. It only works while we are all good friends.
_________________
Regards,
NeddySeagoon
Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2015 11:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| yngwin wrote: | | khayyam wrote: | | Can you show me where it is that gentoo developers were provided a grant to make contracts, rules, or conduct business on behalf of the gentoo foundation? |
You seem confused about the role of the Gentoo Foundation and its relationship with how Gentoo is developed. Read that document carefully again. I can't tell you much more than that, especially since I'm not a lawyer, and you seem to want to move this into legal territory. |
yngwin ... if its me who's confused then you should enlighten me because all I can make of this discussion so far is your having failed to support your claims (choosing now to make them legal questions your not qualified to discuss) and, conveniently, avoiding those points at which you have been caught in a bind. I too am not a lawyer, though I have a fair understanding of the subject, but such a qualification doesn't seem necessary here as the whole question could be framed very simply:
If the principles outlined in the gentoo charter, specifically "for the community, by the community", do not provide a rule governing developers then under what grant (the provision of a right) do gentoo developers act? The licence granted by the charter includes the principles laid out in that charter, if you want to claim that the charter doesn't hold you to any such principles then by what are you granted the right to act?
I've asked you show me where developers are provided a right to make contracts, or to do anything other than act as developers, and so provide me with the authority you claim to act under. If that authority is derived from the charter, then you are subject to the charter and all its principles ... its that simple.
So, back to the question you've continued to assert, but are unable to support, are developers free to "do what they want" or are developers "agents of the community, acting for the benefit of that community"?
| yngwin wrote: | | Anyway, I'm done here. I don't think I can accomplish more by further participating in this discussion. I have bugs to handle. |
Honestly, you haven't accomplished anything ... all you've done is shown developers to be entirely in a world of their own, and that when pushed to answer to your assertions, and you find yourself in a bind, your only recourse is to make a quick exit.
best ... khay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2015 12:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Part of it may be that yngwin isn't a toxic developer, so is having to explain behaviour that he does not himself indulge in, at least from what I've seen.
OTOH perhaps it might be better if he didn't try to represent all developers.
Still, I'm being ignored, so fsck it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2015 1:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| khayyam wrote: | | [...] the whole question could be framed very simply: [...] |
gahhhh ... I really should hold off replying before I've had coffee :P ... simply:
What provides developers their authority to act as agents of the community, if its the charter then they are subject to the principles laid out in that charter.
No other rights other than those of acting as agents of the community are granted them, they are not provided any right to make contracts, rules, or do anything other than what's necessary for them to function as agents of that community, with the principles provided in the charter acting as their governing principles.
edit: ... and something I missed, or was added, to your last post:
| yngwin wrote: | | khayyam wrote: | | yngwin wrote: | | Euhm, no. Which of the 4 different approaches to multilib is most beneficial to the community? Is supporting systemd beneficial to the community? Is deprecating herds beneficial to the community? And so on. There are many issues which are controversial, or simply not clear. |
Oh, I see ... developers, or your benevolent dictator, are best placed to make those decisions, and of course whatever decisions they make will obviously reflect the best interest of the community as a whole. |
No, I'm just pointing out that it is not always clear what is in the best interest of the community. You said "the problem is not the 'lack of clarity'", which is what I'm disagreeing with here. |
... and as I said, you've done away with the 'community' toward which any such criteria of 'best interest' could be applied, that's why I returned to the question of who, or what, gets to make those decisions.
best ... khay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2015 11:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hmm rereading, i think the point yngwin was making wrt "how gentoo is developed" is that, irrespective of the Charter et al, the Foundation is hands-off in terms of the development process, which is solely the concern of developers (in this interpretation), ultimately decided by the Council, in cases where there is developer-developer conflict, or a lack of consensus.
OFC the lack of consensus is only supposed to be an issue, if some action is absolutely required, and a decision must be made.
This wasn't the case with the "no more support for separate /usr partition" decision, which stemmed from deception by William Hubbs, but isn't something I'd blame the Council for necessarily. ie I don't think it was malicious; it's to be expected that they take one of their own on good faith. It was foolish, because they were privy to the same discussions on the mailing-list as everyone else, so clearly they were napping, at best.
User-developer conflict was never meant to be under the Council's domain; the Code of Conduct we all voted on stipulated the Proctors for all conflict resolution, across media, deferring to the operators or moderators within each medium in the first instance.
When the current set of Trustees were being appointed, it was quite a stressful time, since the filings for the Foundation had lapsed; that was clearly the priority, but they all came in saying they wanted to get that done, bring it back on an even keel, and then they would move ahead and deal with other issues. Obviously that's my view, but it is very much what I recall, and as you can see from the date on that post, it's not some line I've come up with recently.
Anyone who was around at that time, will remember how shitty the dev mailing-list was back then (even more poisonous than nowadays, apparently because of some "debian influx".)
I for one, feel very let down; all we hear from them instead is "wise" humming and hawing, followed by hand-waving about how it's nothing to do with them. Same as every other person in a "leadership" position, they can't argue with the analysis of how things are broken, and why; they just sit on their hands and bemoan the youth of today, if they say anything, and do nothing instead.
If you think that's leadership, you are a moron, afaic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 54453
Location: 56N 3W
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2015 1:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
steveL,
There is a huge difference between leading volunteers and leading in a paid for job.
In a paid for job, you can (but don't have to) lead from the front using the carrot and stick approach.
With volunteers, there is no carrot and the only stick is to excludle the very people whos support you need, so the stick doesn't work either.
Instead you have to lead from the back, by convincing followers that it was their idea in the first place. That's much harder and more time consuming.
That process also works in paid employment too but there is rarely the time for it.
| steveL wrote: | | User-developer conflict was never meant to be under the Council's domain; the Code of Conduct we all voted on stipulated the Proctors for all conflict resolution, across media, deferring to the operators or moderators within each medium in the first instance. |
For completeness, the Proctors project was created by and answerable to the council.
Food for thought ...
The Trustees predates the establishment of the council. Maybe the Foundation missed a trick when the council was created?
Perhaps the trustees of the time could have prevented the creation of the two headed monster, which Gentoo is today?
Thats something that will be difficult to fix today
_________________
Regards,
NeddySeagoon
Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2015 1:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NeddySeagoon wrote: | steveL,
There is a huge difference between leading volunteers and leading in a paid for job.
In a paid for job, you can (but don't have to) lead from the front using the carrot and stick approach.
With volunteers, there is no carrot and the only stick is to excludle the very people whos support you need, so the stick doesn't work either.
Instead you have to lead from the back, by convincing followers that it was their idea in the first place. That's much harder and more time consuming.
That process also works in paid employment too but there is rarely the time for it. |
And sometimes you have to lead from the front too, by sticking your neck above the parapet, and saying "let's just fix this crap, and move on." Which doesn't mean pretending it's not happening, as that's what allows it to continue.
| steveL wrote: | | User-developer conflict was never meant to be under the Council's domain; the Code of Conduct we all voted on stipulated the Proctors for all conflict resolution, across media, deferring to the operators or moderators within each medium in the first instance. |
| Quote: | | For completeness, the Proctors project was created by and answerable to the council. |
I don't care who made the project within Gentoo, nor do I accept that Council ever had any mandate to oversee social matters.
That's pure nonsense, and we all know it, since the developers have always insisted that the Council is strictly about technical matters, and that people are elected to it on that basis.
In effect they said a long time ago, and have continued to say, that they do not want to deal with anything but technical issues, be that social, political, financial or legal.
The rest is just pretext.
| Quote: | Food for thought ...
The Trustees predates the establishment of the council. Maybe the Foundation missed a trick when the council was created?
Perhaps the trustees of the time could have prevented the creation of the two headed monster, which Gentoo is today? |
The two headed split is exactly what is required: that's the whole point. (See above.)
The problem is that the Trustees are asleep at the wheel; perhaps because they only wanted to get the NFP back up, dunno. Either way they're not taking care of their area. And it is their area, as laid out above for perhaps the 10th or 15th time.
| Quote: | | Thats something that will be difficult to fix today |
Boo-hoo. Correct the problems, or get off the pot. Or at very least, stop pretending that you're in any sort of leadership position; just coast and avoid the topic, like the rest do. Over time, people will move on, and Gentoo will die. Nothing lasts forever. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2015 2:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NeddySeagoon wrote: | | There is a huge difference between leading volunteers and leading in a paid for job. In a paid for job, you can (but don't have to) lead from the front using the carrot and stick approach. With volunteers, there is no carrot and the only stick is to exclude the very people whos support you need, so the stick doesn't work either. Instead you have to lead from the back, by convincing followers that it was their idea in the first place. That's much harder and more time consuming. That process also works in paid employment too but there is rarely the time for it. |
Neddy ... both of these models suggest a governor engaged in getting other parties to go with the program, either via enticement or via being convinced. In our case no such governor exists as nobody has any such right granted them to usurp the community and stand in place of the norm of reciprocity underscoring that community. That people need enticed, or convinced, to act for a mutual/common benefit is something of a paradox, but rather than frame it as a problem of leadership (some party not granted enough power to do whats best, or followers being unreasonable in not knowing what their best interest might be) we might be better to take the carrots point of view, are the current methods used best suited for making carrots, etc, etc. In short, the problem isn't one of sufficient power, its in letting the carrots do what they do best. That's how I see the problem, the community (with all its diverse wants, views, etc) hasn't been given sufficient role in its own production ... if we make carrots, or do lip service to community, its only to have it dangled on the end of a stick.
best ... khay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 54453
Location: 56N 3W
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2015 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
khayyam,
| khayyam wrote: | | Neddy ... both of these models suggest a governor engaged in getting other parties to go with the program, either via enticement or via being convinced. In our case no such governor exists as nobody has any such right granted them to usurp the community and stand in place of the norm of reciprocity underscoring that community. ... |
Once upon a time Gentoo had a Benlovent Dictator For Life. In practice, it wasn't that simple, our BDFL only directed the bits he was personally interested in. The rest was left to the Top Level Project Leads. (TLPL) When our BDFL left, the Foundation was created and Gentoo was left leaderless. The TLPL meeting became more and more irregular. Eventually, the council was formed ... but not to lead, only to resolve technical disputes.
Along the way, the Foundation fell into disrepair, probably because in a community dedicated to software there is little or no interest in management and/or bureaucracy.
My post only pointed out the two extremes - there are shades of grey (devolution?) in the middle. There is no fundamental requirement for a BDFL.
The council picked up all the other things that it has as there was no other active (I nearly said leadership) body to do these things
Thiking about it a little deeper the BDFL also owned the predecessor to the Foundation, so at that time there was a single head of Gentoo.
The split came when the Foundation was formed separately from Gentoo the distro.
All that is water under the bridge. I don't like the two headed monster that Gentoo has become. Its the trustees that are held legally accountable for Gentoo the distro, which if you believe the reference docs, they have no inflence over. As trustee that makes me uncomforable.
For those that do not reed -nfp
| <1403033829.1684.0@NeddySeagoon_Static> wrote: | I'm in for a fourth team, if anyone wants me.
During my fourth term, if re-elected, I would like to work on
reorganising the Gentoo meta structure more in line with that of a
normal corporation. Mostly because what we have today works only as
long as we are all good friends.
It will break horribly if that changes and there have been a few near
hits since early 2008. When it breaks, not if, the Foundation will be
held both accountable and responsible for the fallout. The Foundation
cannot point to other groups within Gentoo and say it was nothing to to
with them.
At the very least, any group that makes decisions on behalf of Gentoo
needs to have its members as officers of the foundation. Moreso if the
decisions are sometimes controversial.
The groups I have in mind are Council, Pr and ComRel. There may be
others.
This is my own re-election manifesto. Its not been discussed with the
present board. If you think its a bad idea, don't vote for me.
There will need to be changes to the Foundation bylaws and probably a
GLEP or two but its all for the long term good of Gentoo. |
That drew some very polarised off list responses but nobody felt strongly enough to stand against me, so I was reelected unopposed.
| khayyam wrote: | | I see the problem, the community (with all its diverse wants, views, etc) hasn't been given sufficient role in its own production |
The community is like topsy so I don't understand your comment.
_________________
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: 6053
Location: Removed by Neddy
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2015 4:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NeddySeagoon wrote: |
That drew some very polarised off list responses but nobody felt strongly enough to stand against me, so I was reelected unopposed. |
A.K.A. BDFL 
Real question then is how to actually mold what exists without pissing people off. Why shouldn't gentoo dev's work on their own pet projects but when their pet projects become community facing things need to be questioned, especially as it then comes with a "gentoo inside" tag associated with whatever goes outside - what if a gentoo dev pushed out the BR codes, Gentoo foundation would be fully liable but the gentoo dev was doing what he wanted because he wanted to watch DVD (and no longer in a private overlay)
| NeddySeagoon wrote: |
| khayyam wrote: | | I see the problem, the community (with all its diverse wants, views, etc) hasn't been given sufficient role in its own production |
The community is like topsy so I don't understand your comment. |
At what stage, if ever, is the community as a whole "consulted" and not just in some form of token gesture. Where should the line be drawn? The whole libav thing is a perfect example, do you think that a collection of gentoo developers should have pushed onto the gentoo community in the way they did a product as default that is inferior and a security concern in the way that they did. What could be done to at least provide a gateway to check such things.
_________________
| Quote: | | Removed by Chiitoo |
|
|
| 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
