| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2015 1:52 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| NeddySeagoon wrote: | | Nobody can force Gentoo devs to do anything. I can't think of any carrots and the only sanction there is, is to take away their commit rights. |
Again, it's not about forcing anyone to do anything, so please stop deflecting into that.
It is purely and simply about: when did that become a license to do w/e tf you want?
In other words: no, no-one's forcing you to do anything: including break perfectly sane setups. You managed that all on your tod.
If you think just because no can force you to something, that means you have an implicit license to do w/e you like, including ignore your userbase, then you need a reality-check.
You certainly have lost touch with what a distribution is all about: its users.
And I for one, want nothing to do with that kind of "development." It's a complete waste of time, all round.
No-one makes any real progress, because we're all either following, or trying to avoid, the latest dweeb with a crap idea, and a good marketing campaign to match his delusional thinking.
The last thing we need, is obfuscation by dilettante. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Tony0945
Watchman
Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 5127
Location: Illinois, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2015 2:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| steveL wrote: | | NeddySeagoon wrote: | | Nobody can force Gentoo devs to do anything. I can't think of any carrots and the only sanction there is, is to take away their commit rights. |
Again, it's not about forcing anyone to do anything, so please stop deflecting into that.
It is purely and simply about: when did that become a license to do w/e tf you want?
In other words: no, no-one's forcing you to do anything: including break perfectly sane setups. You managed that all on your tod.
If you think just because no can force you to something, that means you have an implicit license to do w/e you like, including ignore your userbase, then you need a reality-check.
You certainly have lost touch with what a distribution is all about: its users.
And I for one, want nothing to do with that kind of "development." It's a complete waste of time, all round.
No-one makes any real progress, because we're all either following, or trying to avoid, the latest dweeb with a crap idea, and a good marketing campaign to match his delusional thinking.
The last thing we need, is obfuscation by dilettante. |
Steve? Are you addressing NeddySeagoon with "you" or is that a generic "you"? I totally agree with your remarks if by "you", a generic developer is meant, but I definitely do not agree if your remarks are directed at NeddySeagoon in particular. Please clarify this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gwr
Apprentice
Joined: 19 Nov 2014
Posts: 194
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2015 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| steveL wrote: | | NeddySeagoon wrote: | | Nobody can force Gentoo devs to do anything. I can't think of any carrots and the only sanction there is, is to take away their commit rights. |
Again, it's not about forcing anyone to do anything, so please stop deflecting into that.
It is purely and simply about: when did that become a license to do w/e tf you want? |
Forgive my ignorance, but how exactly does Gentoo maintain any mandate currently? If an influential dev decided Gentoo was no longer about choice, what would happen? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2015 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gwr wrote: | | Forgive my ignorance, but how exactly does Gentoo maintain any mandate currently? If an influential dev decided Gentoo was no longer about choice, what would happen? |
gwr ... that depends on who you ask (long discussion on the subject of 'gentoo governance').
best ... khay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gwr
Apprentice
Joined: 19 Nov 2014
Posts: 194
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2015 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| khayyam wrote: | | gwr wrote: | | Forgive my ignorance, but how exactly does Gentoo maintain any mandate currently? If an influential dev decided Gentoo was no longer about choice, what would happen? |
gwr ... that depends on who you ask (long discussion on the subject of 'gentoo governance').
best ... khay |
Well that was a bit depressing to read. :D
That all seems to deal with attempting to extrapolate the CoC to the tension between users and developers, but there doesn't seem to be a specific technical document that stipulates what the overall goal of the Gentoo product is. There's a good deal on how to run a council and communicate in public, what what guidance is there to protect the users from the "we build it, so we say so" mentality? (Of which I think little of). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2015 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gwr wrote: | | khayyam wrote: | | gwr wrote: | | Forgive my ignorance, but how exactly does Gentoo maintain any mandate currently? If an influential dev decided Gentoo was no longer about choice, what would happen? |
that depends on who you ask (long discussion on the subject of 'gentoo governance'). |
That all seems to deal with attempting to extrapolate the CoC to the tension between users and developers, but there doesn't seem to be a specific technical document that stipulates what the overall goal of the Gentoo product is. There's a good deal on how to run a council and communicate in public, what what guidance is there to protect the users from the "we build it, so we say so" mentality? (Of which I think little of). |
gwr ... that's what I mean by "depends on who you ask", the Gentoo Foundation Charter has "for the community, by the community" as one of its four "principles", but as you've seen argued in the above discussion, that "document [...] describes the Gentoo Foundation, which is a separate entity" and "the community isn't paying for [developers] work, so it has no claim on what developers should be doing", etc. So, though you'd think it'd be clear what the Gentoo Foundation is chartering developers to do, developers still believe its their prerogative to "do as they please".
best ... khay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gwr
Apprentice
Joined: 19 Nov 2014
Posts: 194
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2015 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| khayyam wrote: | | The Gentoo Foundation Charter has "for the community, by the community" as one of its four "principles", but as you've seen argued in the above discussion, that "document [...] describes the Gentoo Foundation, which is a separate entity" and "the community isn't paying for [developers] work, so it has no claim on what developers should be doing", etc. So, though you'd think it'd be clear what the Gentoo Foundation is chartering developers to do, developers still believe its their prerogative to "do as they please". |
I don't really understand the developer's point of view that because the work is volunteered, they get to do whatever they want. I volunteer time at a community organization, but I don't just walk in and do what I please.
In fact, I don't do whatever I please in my paid job, either. I assume responsibility to whatever task I take on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 54308
Location: 56N 3W
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2015 8:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
khayyam,
As a trustee, | Quote: | | "document [...] describes the Gentoo Foundation, which is a separate entity" |
gives me the willies, as I am one of the people legally responsible and accountable for Gentoo.
Anyway that's off topic in this thread.
_________________
Regards,
NeddySeagoon
Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
saellaven
l33t
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 648
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2015 8:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Legally speaking, all of the IP, legal responsibilities and whatnot belong to the Foundation.
Many devs have the attitude that they, and they alone, are Gentoo and can rule how they see fit, particularly if they can get a ruling from the Council, which is effectively, just another dev body that is only supposed to focus on technical issues, playing the mediator during a conflict.
Officially, the Council has absolutely no authority over anything at all. It exists because the devs want it and the Foundation doesn't choose to eliminate it.
Nothing stops the devs from stomping all over the tree, modifying packages that they don't even maintain (and, in fact, this has caused friction between devs when someone has decided to essentially perform a hostile takeover - see flameeyes when the systemd devs started modifying pam "for" him as an example), and generally raising hell, except devrel, the Council and the Foundation. In practicality, the Foundation generally doesn't get involved with these types of issues, leaving the devs to police themselves.
So, if you're looking to strong arm your fellow devs and the entire distribution, the goal is to take over the Council and devrel. Theoretically still, infra can lock all the devs out of anything should things get too hostile, and they have a lot of influence.
But I'm of the opinion that the /usr move was a test to see how well they could flex their muscle with the Council and the simple fact remains that, should they recruit enough devs to say "screw choice, screw the users, Gentoo is going systemd only too," the only ones that can stop them are the Foundation and infra.
I've long talked about maintaining a fork of Gentoo in a sane state, but, having started a business 15 months ago and pulling 70 hour weeks regularly to make everything function, I haven't had the time to do it myself. Funtoo is an obvious place to retreat to should that occur, but I don't know if they will be able to hold out forever if "Linux" becomes synonymous with systemd/Linux instead of GNU/Linux and future upstream application developers consider the systemd mantra of "systemd talks to the kernel, everything else talks to systemd" true, as it reaches its tentacles even further into userland. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2015 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gwr wrote: | | khayyam wrote: | | The Gentoo Foundation Charter has "for the community, by the community" as one of its four "principles", but as you've seen argued in the above discussion, that "document [...] describes the Gentoo Foundation, which is a separate entity" and "the community isn't paying for [developers] work, so it has no claim on what developers should be doing", etc. So, though you'd think it'd be clear what the Gentoo Foundation is chartering developers to do, developers still believe its their prerogative to "do as they please". |
I don't really understand the developer's point of view that because the work is volunteered, they get to do whatever they want. I volunteer time at a community organization, but I don't just walk in and do what I please. In fact, I don't do whatever I please in my paid job, either. I assume responsibility to whatever task I take on. |
gwr ... its a view inculcated within, and by, developers ... and when the 'community' try and hold developers responcible in some way the wagons circle. Similarly, if your not a developer (provide "code") then your "opinion is [...] meaningless". That's an oft heard refrain (I could dig out a number of such arguments here, posted by developers), and though it doesn't represent the view of all developers it doesn't suggest that developers (as a group) understand the mandate outlined in the charter ... as you saw in the above thread, some don't even think they are subject to it, and think the problem of decision making can be solved by instituting a "dictator[ship]".
@NeddySeagoon ... well, you're really the only body that has the authority to change that situation.
best ... khay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gwr
Apprentice
Joined: 19 Nov 2014
Posts: 194
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2015 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| khayyam wrote: | | as you saw in the above thread, some don't even think they are subject to it, and think the problem of decision making can be solved by instituting a "dictator[ship]". |
Well, a dictator would solve the problem of who is in charge, but unless you have a succession of benevolent dictators, then you are in deep trouble! :-)
I like the four guiding principles of the Foundation. That is exactly the kind of guiding document I was looking for for technical issues. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2015 10:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tony0945 wrote: | | Steve? Are you addressing NeddySeagoon with "you" or is that a generic "you"? I totally agree with your remarks if by "you", a generic developer is meant, but I definitely do not agree if your remarks are directed at NeddySeagoon in particular. Please clarify this. |
It's absolutely a generic "you"; I have a lot of time and respect for NeddySeagoon, which he knows as we've met IRL. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony0945
Watchman
Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 5127
Location: Illinois, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2015 12:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| steveL wrote: | | Tony0945 wrote: | | Steve? Are you addressing NeddySeagoon with "you" or is that a generic "you"? I totally agree with your remarks if by "you", a generic developer is meant, but I definitely do not agree if your remarks are directed at NeddySeagoon in particular. Please clarify this. |
It's absolutely a generic "you"; I have a lot of time and respect for NeddySeagoon, which he knows as we've met IRL. |
I'm relieved to hear it. Sometimes this is not clear and I think it gets you into trouble. You are a man of passion and I understand that for I am a passionate man also. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2015 12:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
What saellevan and khayyam said, is all pretty accurate ime.
| saellevan wrote: | | if you're looking to strong arm your fellow devs and the entire distribution, the goal is to take over the Council and devrel. |
Indeed, and that's effectively happened already.
Council and Comrel pretend not to see the conflict-of-interest that is blatantly obvious to everyone else, in having the developers oversee all social issues, despite it being completely outside the Council's mandate and area of expertise.
As a result, developers continue to abuse the process, filing complaints against anyone they don't like, which never result in any comeback when they fail miserably. ("Better luck next time," seems about the totality of it.)
A Council member like William Hubbs, can and has abused the same process, and shows up trying to push the same agenda without mentioning that it's a personal issue which he wants to pursue. This raises the question of what you're supposed to do when a Council member is way out of control, to which the answer would appear to be: capitulate.
Despite being told over and over that he misinterpreted what was said about 2 years ago, Hubbs continues to abuse his position, trying to get the Trustees or the Council to agree to remove me, without even a semblance of due process: just on his say-so (because he's on the Council, presumably.)
For instance, he had antarus (Alec Warner) raise it with Trustees, who didn't see what it had to do with them; without any notification to me, of course.
If it had gone through as he'd hoped (and he was clearly priming antarus) I would have been summarily removed from the Foundation, without even knowing it had occurred.[1]
Then he brought it up on the project mailing-list, to put on the Council agenda; without mentioning the real background ofc, even when it was queried.
This is what I mean by "odious behaviour", a description that still seems accurate in my view.
I wouldn't mind so much if he actually had a semblance of a clue when it came to developing openrc [2]; though if he did, we'd likely never have fallen out, as he'd never have behaved so truculently with users in #openrc to cover his lack of basic competence.
I just wish there was some semblance of impartiality, and some sense of fair-play about Comrel, as there used to be when fmmcor (RIP) and jmbsvicetto were the main guys.
The team was reformed after the fiasco with how their supposed team-lead (Markus Chandros) handled Hubbs' initial complaint (over a year ago) against me, so IDK who's involved now.
All I know is that Chandros was far more concerned about his name appearing on a bug, then he ever was about showing his behaviour was reasonable, let alone proportionate or well-founded.
You really do not want to give that job to people who actively seek it.
--
[1] This is a common situation with "developer" actions against me; I only find out that I was up for a "[Developer] CoC action", iow someone is seeking to get a "strike" against me, even though that's not what they're meant for, and even though I am not a developer so the CoC does not apply (the User terms do, and they are already stronger than the CoC; which was meant to bring developers in line with user-behaviour, since they were so clearly falling woefully short of that standard, let alone a higher one.)
The "strikes" are supposed to apply to continued patterns of repeated abuse (as displayed by McCreesh, year in and year out) despite clear warnings from moderators; originally Proctors, but the Community CoC was scotched by Canelloni, so the Developer one went through instead.
And now we get much rewriting of history, to lie that it has some sort of Community mandate, such that developers can use it against users, even though it only applies to developers; this is why the word "Developer" appears in it so many times, if you can find an unmangled copy. The recent website changes appear to be an exercise in expunging Gentoo history, more than anything else.
This is ofc utter bullshit: the Developer CoC was a compromise so that developers could bring their own house in order, since their Council had just pulled the rug from the Proctors, despite having just agreed to institute the team officially (and indeed having met with them to that effect.)
Everyone else, besides that small clique of developers, was completely fed up at the continual huckstering, the evasion of responsibility rather than stepping up to the plate, and the wasted 9 months of Community time.
Not to mention how the Proctors felt, about the Council stabbing them in the back before they'd even begun.
This is why I don't think you should allow recent graduates to rule the roost.
They have a tendency to think a badge allowing them to contribute bash scriptlets (which they can't even write well), means a lot more than it does in reality to the RoTW.
And they are typically insecure males, without much social life, seeking status: the exact group who do so much to make the "modern" internet so unpleasant.
As a result, they really do carry on like they're all individually the Lord of the Files; the vocal ones who post regularly on the mailing-list, seem to think they're all the alpha-dog "rockstar" of Gentoo, which really does get a smile.
The older regulars just seem like nodding-dogs, occasionally pointing out the bleeding-obvious in an attempt to appear statesmanlike.
Just my view, after spending a few years trying to reason with them, and in the process provoking a shitstorm that was already brewing, but which now means many developers blame me for their own shortcomings.
Projection isn't so much fun, ime.
Still, at least we lanced the McCreesh boil. ;-)
--
[2] Here's a recent example: (clock is out, but relative times are accurate.) | Code: | [Thursday 03 Sep 2015] #gentoo-udev
[17:07:00] <Poly-C_atwork> WilliamH: Before I forget to ask you again; I am still using this patch for udev-init-scripts-30: http://www.gentoofan.org/gentoo/poly-c_overlay/sys-fs/udev-init-scripts/files/udev-init-scripts-30-fixes.patch
[17:07:30] <Poly-C_atwork> WilliamH: Feel free to incorporate anything not yet being in latest udev-init-scripts
[17:08:37] <Poly-C_atwork> WilliamH: Eh and the question of course: Is this something you'd consider applying if not yet done? :D
[17:09:41] <WilliamH> let me take a look at it.
[17:10:28] <_AxS_> Poly-C_atwork: does this just split get-udevd-binary stuff into its own function?
[17:13:16] <WilliamH> That's what it looks like.
[17:16:10] <WilliamH> I'm not sure yet about the debug stuff in the patch, I'll have to review it in context.
[17:16:19] <igli> it's hardly hard to grasp
[17:16:34] <igli> worrying part is adding redirection like: '< /dev/null > /dev/null' to command_args
[17:17:03] <igli> use -1 and -2 to ssd if they have to come from argument
[17:17:53] <igli> better to redirect properly in the command usually
[17:20:00] <WilliamH> igli: command_args gets added to the end of the command, that happens in the start/stop functions, so I'm not sure how that is a problem?
[17:21:20] <igli> if only you'd learnt sh, you might
[17:21:35] <igli> try #bash -- they'll teach you sh, if you specify that upfront.
[17:21:45] <igli> but since i told you that 2 years ago..
[parted] |
If I seem acerbic, bear in mind the above background about how he's trying to get me removed, from all Gentoo media, and from the Foundation itself.
Given that, I found his chutzpah in asking for advice as if we were on speaking terms, distasteful.
Especially since he clearly has not bothered to learn one of the two implementation languages of openrc, and indeed the only one he's ever been able to deal with (since "it's only shell") in all the time I've kept current with the project, and what? at least 3 years in "charge."
Perhaps I should put him back on /ignore, but it seems I need to keep an eye on what he's saying, or he'll have me removed forthwith from every Gentoo medium, for teaching him how to implement the project he's supposedly leading.
Here's another howler, that simple testing of what he'd just written would have caught, but so should simple rereading. (It really is basic, as the next post makes clear.)
The lack of both really does scream "amateur-hour" to me, but he's always resisted even the minimal sort of overlay work that desktop environments carry out routinely, despite the fact that this is base-system, and despite (or likely because of) the fact he so clearly needs it.
But no, he's above doing the sort of things binutils and gcc maintainers do, and we're all "below" him when it comes to having an opinion.
So yes, I "rage-quit" (despite not being a developer, this is how another Gentoo developer described it at the time.) Sue me.
Hopefully now my reasons for calling Hubbs incompetent are clear; even if you disagree, please don't try to make out it's a personal attack.
It is not about his personality, but his lack of basic technical ability that, coupled with his behaviour to cover up that incompetence, makes him wholly unsuitable as a lead, in my professional opinion.
A lead needs to be transparent; since the source already is, you don't get much choice, but it's necessary w/e the milieu.
And self-evidently competent.
Feel free to find the discussions referred to, once the Foundation logs are open again (they disappeared from the old site, shortly after I read it, and I can't work out how to find them on the new one) if you think I'm lying. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2015 12:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| gwr wrote: | | I like the four guiding principles of the Foundation. That is exactly the kind of guiding document I was looking for for technical issues. |
Me too.
Let's pull them out, in case they suddenly go "missing" later on:
| Gentoo Foundation wrote: | The Gentoo Foundation keeps four pillars in mind:
- Gentoo provides choices
- Gentoo is open
- Gentoo lives for the community, by the community
- Gentoo is independent
Gentoo provides choices
Gentoo is a metadistribution, providing choices to its users.
This important idea forms the basis of Gentoo's development: not a single feature will be dismissed in favor of a different one when both can be maintained. Skills learned today will still be relevant in the future.
Gentoo is open
Every aspect of Gentoo is and remains open. Gentoo does not benefit from hiding any of its development processes (whether it is source code or documentation, decisions or discussions, coordination or management).
Gentoo lives for the community, by the community
Gentoo strives to please its users. The Gentoo community is Gentoo's goal of life. Without community there is no Gentoo.
To help Gentoo's development, the community provides a continuous stream of feedback and contributes to the various aspects of the Gentoo distribution. This cooperative model will remain valid for Gentoo's entire lifespan.
Gentoo is independent
Gentoo will never be reigned by a company nor be dictated by an organisation. |
So much for "Gentoo is not about choice" as some have tried to push a new idiot-meme on the developer list. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2015 2:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| steveL wrote: | | gwr wrote: | | I like the four guiding principles of the Foundation. That is exactly the kind of guiding document I was looking for for technical issues. |
Me too. Let's pull them out, in case they suddenly go "missing" later on: |
.... or "revised" ... I intended to mention the following previously but was rushing out the door when I wrote the above:
Note how that document is no longer a "charter" (compare to the same page before the migration). It's gone from being a charter to being simply about the foundation.
I speculate this is due to my having pointed out earlier this year the kind of legal construct a charter is ... how it subjugates the recipients of that charter to its "principles", and the extent of the "rights granted".
@NeddySeagoon ... this is something only the Trustee's of the Foundation have any authority over, if its no longer a charter, then the Gentoo Foundation needs to provide the method by which its power is granted/transferred to subordinates.
best ... khay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anon-E-moose
Watchman
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 6102
Location: Dallas area
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2015 9:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
The Peter principle
_________________
PRIME x570-pro, 3700x, 6.1 zen kernel
gcc 13, profile 17.0 (custom bare multilib), openrc, wayland |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gwr
Apprentice
Joined: 19 Nov 2014
Posts: 194
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2015 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| khayyam wrote: | | [It's gone from being a charter to being simply about the foundation. |
That's a fairly significant change in semantics.
Edit: I carn't spel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gwr
Apprentice
Joined: 19 Nov 2014
Posts: 194
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2015 1:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
[17:16:34] <igli> worrying part is adding redirection like: '< /dev/null > /dev/null' to command_args
|
Well, if they're lying to their scripts about input and output, then no wonder they have so much trouble with shell scripting. If a script is _disallowed_ to process input or output, better to use -1 and -2 so that it receives an error. It would be worse to port a script over and fool it into thinking it is not getting input or is doing output. Who knows what that script is doing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 54308
Location: 56N 3W
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2015 5:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
steveL,
Foundation meeting logs are linked from https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Main_Page#Principles_of_the_Gentoo_Foundation.
See under Board Minutes. The records could do with some TLC. I'll add that to my things to do.
I have a copy of the documents CVS from shortly before the old site went away. That will include all of the Foundation space.
khayyam,
I'll look into the rewording of the Foundation Charter too.
All in all, it looks like that there is some material missing on the Wiki that was in CVS. It may be there but I just can't fnd it too.
_________________
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: Mon Sep 28, 2015 5:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gwr wrote: | | khayyam wrote: | | as you saw in the above thread, some don't even think they are subject to it, and think the problem of decision making can be solved by instituting a "dictator[ship]". |
Well, a dictator would solve the problem of who is in charge, but unless you have a succession of benevolent dictators, then you are in deep trouble! :-) |
gwr ... missed that. Well, no, because any authority developers have is derived from the charter, and that document provides the decision making model/process: "for the community, by the community" ... a "cooperative model [...] valid for Gentoo's entire lifespan" ... a dictatorship would invalidate the terms of that "principle".
| gwr wrote: | | khayyam wrote: | | [It's gone from being a charter to being simply about the foundation. |
That's a fairly significant change in semantics. |
Indeed ... and a subtle one. I'd have to do some research but I'm fairly sure you can't negate a charter without first disbanding the entities it incorporates. This act, or any amendment/change to the charter, can only be carried out by the Foundation, and not by its subjects.
@NeddySeagoon ... I should note, such a negation/change could provide legitimate grounds for subjecting the Foundation to a class action suit.
best ... khay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 54308
Location: 56N 3W
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2015 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
khayyam,
I know the board did not discuss such a change but I'm hard pressed to demonstrate that right now.
_________________
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: Mon Sep 28, 2015 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NeddySeagoon wrote: | | I know the board did not discuss such a change but I'm hard pressed to demonstrate that right now. |
Neddy ... have your lawyer call my lawyer ;) ... or, in other words, the above class action isn't a threat ... its just one more thing for you to have "nightmares" over ;)
best ... khay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HungGarTiger
Apprentice
Joined: 04 Feb 2014
Posts: 180
Location: /nz/auckland
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2015 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| depontius wrote: | | saellaven wrote: |
Due to pushback from key Gentoo devs, systemd never did manage to replace openrc as the default, but the current push continues in the form of making an init-less version of Gentoo that forces people to choose at install time rather than have openrc as the default. While not making systemd the default, it does further the agenda by at least making openrc not the default too, and with all of the cheerleading, FUD and politicking out of the systemd camp, I'm sure the hope is that people, particularly new unwitting and/or inexperienced people, will pick systemd if they don't have something by default since "that's what everyone else uses." |
Gentoo, along with Slackware, has become the last refuge of the Linux old guard. Over the next months I would anticpate picking up new-to-Gentoo users, precisely because they can avoid systemd. They'll know, when they're installing. |
This is exactly why I joined Gentoo, I've never looked back. Though most people I speak to that have moved to Gentoo in the last 6 month have all gone the systemd route because
Forgive me for maybe being naive on this subject as I haven't been around for anywhere near the length of time as most of you, and I'm assuming from what I've read that the Gentoo Foundation is the top of the pyramid in terms of power. Though maybe that should be the users? It seems to me that given the Gentoo Principles mentioned above and from the gist of the conversation shouldn't there be a medium for the users to complain to the Foundation about the issue of devs acting out of line? Given that this line says
| Quote: | | Without the community there is no Gentoo |
and the actions of certain devs pushing a large number of highly active and influential community members towards leaving Gentoo (not to mention talk of "Gentoo isn't about choice" and making steps towards removing choice from Gentoo altogether), this would be a serious concern for the Foundatoin? Shouldn't then the Foundation be able to reign in or 'let go' those devs that are not making the users happy and as such clearly detrimental to Gentoo as a whole?
That seems like the simple solution to me (again maybe naively). Though talk of those principles no longer being a charter, seems to be tantamount to removing the power of the Foundation completely. Has the Foundation been caught napping here? IMO if you remove choice, you kill Gentoo. Fact. Certain dev have said they want to remove choice from Gentoo, in order to push a personal agenda. This is documented. Fact. It then follows that these devs do not actually care about the continuation of Gentoo, as such why would their continued employment be required?
Again, this maybe a naive post due to my lack of knowledge in the Gentoo history as such any points I am missing please feel free to educate me on 
Last edited by HungGarTiger on Mon Sep 28, 2015 10:51 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 54308
Location: 56N 3W
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2015 9:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
khayyam,
:)
I didn't see it as a threat.
It looks like the XML to wiki process dropped the preamble from the source XML.
The Foundation has a Charter again.
_________________
Regards,
NeddySeagoon
Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail. |
|
| 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
