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