Hash: SHA1

Tiziano Müller wrote:
> Torsten Veller schrieb:
>> Let me please point out that no infrastructure team member is
>> on the list right now.
>> As infra is often involved in implementing council decisions we should
>> take care that the information flows. IMHO the easiest way to achieve this
>> is electing an infra member to the council.
> And if someone has to be in a council/whatsoever to get the relevant
> information, something else is broken. And tweaking the election
> procedure to reach that someone from a special project is elected is
> somehow questionable, don't you think?

Well, I don't think there is anything wrong with somebody from infra
being on the council, but I also agree that it shouldn't be essential.

I see the council as being like a board of directors for a company -
they don't need to make day-to-day decisions but they do need to have
ultimate oversight.  The skillset needed to run a board is different
from the skillset needed to run day-to-day operations.

I see the main skills needed by a council member as:

1.  Good people skills!
2.  Ability to listen to all sides of an issue and make informed decisions.
3.  Ability to be an advocate for the project.
4.  Energy and spirit - ability to motivate.
5.  Ability to be firm when needed - balanced with ability to stay
polite while being firm.
6.  Some technical vision for the project.
7.  Ability to evaluate proposed solutions to technical problems.

Honestly, I'm actually wondering if it is a mistake to limit the council
nominations to devs only.  Having the devs do the voting is a good move
I think - they have to live with the decisions and alienating the devs
isn't going to be good for the users and other stakeholders.  However,
if the devs want to elect a non-dev I think that they should be able to
do so.  Organizations frequently have boards that are composed of

I think that Gentoo is making a mistake in seeing the council as a place
where ultimately highly-technical decisions get made.  I think that is
one role of the council, but if you look at Gentoo that isn't what is
really causing the problems.  The only really technical flamefest I tend
to see on -dev is the periodic what-is-the-blessed-package-manager war -
and that really isn't so much a technical battle as much as one of
principle - should gentoo have more than one?  (AND PLEASE DO NOT REPLY
TO THIS OPENING UP THAT BATTLE AGAIN!!!)  Most other technical debates
on -dev tend to be a little more dispassionate.

My feeling is that the council should be setting general direction and
providing accountability on technical issues, but individual herd leads
should be the ones taking the initiative.  Is there a QA issue?  The QA
herd lead should come up with a potential solution, run it past the
council with some advance debate, and then everybody works together to
implement it.  The council doesn't need to solve every problem - they
just need to listen to people who might have the answer - with a large
group like Gentoo they probably already exist.

And the council shouldn't be afraid to hire others to do the day-to-day
work (well, maybe hire without pay if necessary...  :) ).  The proctors
were a good example of this (even if maybe it didn't get implemented as
intended or it didn't go as well as hoped).  While the council does need
energy it shouldn't require personally moderating the whole project.  In
real life boards hire CEOs to do the heavy lifting and just meet once
per month to see how it is going.  I'm not advocating that for gentoo,
but people do need to look at the council differently than they do now.
 It doesn't have to have the best developers in gentoo - it needs to
have the best council-members in Gentoo...
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Reply via email to