On Mon, 2006-01-02 at 20:49 +0100, Grobian wrote: > On 02-01-2006 20:03:54 +0100, Patrick Lauer wrote: > > On Mon, 2006-01-02 at 12:50 -0600, Lance Albertson wrote: > > > I guess I'm almost hinting at that Gentoo needs a single entity that's > > > sole purpose is to drive/research the direction and goals for Gentoo. > Or call it proper hierarchy. Management. Probably all evil words, in > this context, but they for sure apply. Well ... it's like every dev has a special title - Gentoo/MIPS gcc senior integration specialist and stuff like that ;-) Doesn't resolve the communication / hierarchy issues, but makes us all feel warm and fuzzy inside. (I know I'm a bit evil here, but ...) what I think is needed is more communication. Not more "discussing", trolling, yelling etc. etc. but general info. Quite some time ago I tried to get some info from all subprojects what they had been doing - security and docs replied, then a bit later I think Alt and Toolchain gave a short "we're not dead yet". If all projectss could agree to deliver a "mission statement", progress report or whatever you wish to call it every $TIMEUNIT (3 months? 6 months?) it'd be really nice ... (and would make the GWN really exciting *nudge nudge wink wink*)
> If it isn't one person, then you would need to find two persons or even > more that are completely aligned and have the same visions. Since > leaders usually are charismatic and controversial where necessary to > achieve their goals, it is hard to find two that don't get conflicts, > stalling any vision to become a mission. To extrapolate from that ... council etc. are incapable of doing "real work"? ;-) Or in other words, a person is smart, people are dumb > > After all there is noone capable of forcing anyone to do anything as far > > as I can tell - worst case you fork Gentoo (again) and don't resolve > > the issues. > > ...or only resolve the ones that you care about. Your first sentence > forms the basis of the problem, IMHO. There are ways to get people to do what you want, but they are quite limited. For example for QA reasons you can make people fix their ebuilds, but that's about the limit of influence you can have right now. > Call it "bureaucrazy", or whatever you like. I think it has nothing > to do with bureaucracy at all. It's just a matter of having > communication on a high level, in order to get an overall view of > Gentoo. IIRC this is one of the tasks of the council, to align teams > somehow, for example. I don't know if the council is the right group to get project progress reports collected, but the point stands - communication is good :-) > > ... and you'd burn out a capable person within half a year I think > > Depends on the person. Lance is just putting a lot of Mintzberg and > probably (work) experience on the table to apply it to Gentoo. > But ok, fine, if that's the case, gives a nice refresh rate :) (j/k) <troll> I say we put ciaran first to that job ... </troll> > > > Dunno, maybe I'm the loner here thinking this... > > Well, you're not alone for sure ;) However, the amount of measures to > take, why and what are a bit of an open question to me. I do, however, > share your concerns of a missing 'Mission Statement'. It is a commonly > known problem and primary point of concern (ie. Heene). I guess we should decide on a problem before solving it :-) Is the problem the lack of a mission statement? I don't see the need for that, we all have our own definitions what a Gentoo is and why it's cool. Trying to get that defined will be really tricky (and I predict a smallish flamewar) We already have a mission statement - to produce the best software distribution, ever ;-) Wether it should be Linux only, GNU-based or a metadistribution is a rather touchy subject, so please try to keep the discussion civilized ... wkr, Patrick -- Stand still, and let the rest of the universe move
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
