en/glep/glep-0039.txt

GLEP: 39
Title: An "old-school" metastructure proposal with "boot for being a slacker" 
Version: $Revision: 1.3 $
Last-Modified: $Date: 2007/10/12 02:08:27 $
Author: Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@gentoo.org>,
        Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@gentoo.org>,
Status: Accepted
Type: Informational
Content-Type: text/x-rst
Created: 01-Sep-2005
Post-History: 01-Sep-2005, 09-Feb-2006, 12-Oct-2007

Status
======

Implemented. GLEP amended on 09 Feb 2006 to add the final bullet point to
list B in `Specification`_.

Abstract
========

GLEP 4 is replaced with a new "metastructure" that retains established
projects (and makes new projects easier to create), but adds a new "Gentoo
Council" to handle global (cross-project) issues.

Motivation
==========

The Fosdem and subsequent reform proposals shepherded by Koon are thorough,
extremely detailed, and somewhat complicated.  They have a lot of good ideas.
For many who have been with Gentoo a long time, though, there's just something
about them that they don't really like.  More than a few Gentoo devs are
almost entirely uninterested in metastructure as long as it doesn't get in
their way, and because the current proposals impose at least some order on our
unruly devs these proposals are guaranteed to "get in the way" to some degree.
For example, a frequent comment that has been heard is that many Gentoo devs
don't know who his/her manager (or project lead) is, which is a clear
indication that our current system is broken.  The existing proposals solve
the problem by requiring that each dev belong to a project.  Perhaps the part
that is broken, though, is the belief that every dev should have a manager.
The history of Gentoo is such that traditionally big advances have often been
implemented by a single or a small number of dedicated devs (thus our
long-standing tradition that devs have access to the entire tree), and surely
we do not want to make things harder (or less fun) for such people.  So here's
a minimal proposal for those who remembers the "good ol' days" and thinks
things aren't really so different now.

Synopsis of the current system:

  *  There are 13-15 top-level projects (TLPs).  Top-level projects are
     comprised of sub-projects, and the goal was that every Gentoo
     project would be a sub-project of one of the TLPs.  Supposedly each
     dev therefore belongs to one or more TLPs.
  *  Each TLP has at least a "strategic" manager, and potentially also an
     "operational" manager.  Only the strategic managers vote on global
     Gentoo issues.
  *  The managers of each TLP were appointed by drobbins, the other
     TLP managers, or elected by their project members.  These managers
     have no set term.
  *  Within each TLP the managers are responsible for making decisions
     about the project, defining clear goals, roadmaps, and timelines
     for the project, and solving problems that arise within the TLP
     (see GLEP 4 for the specific list).
  *  The strategic TLP managers are also responsible for deciding issues that
     affect Gentoo across project lines.  The primary mechanism for
     handling global-scope issues is the managers' meetings.
  *  Disciplinary action taken against erring devs is handled by the
     "devrel" TLP, unless the dev is a strategic TLP manager.  In that
     case disciplinary action must be enacted by the other strategic TLP
     managers.

Problems with the existing system:

1. The assumption that TLPs are complete is either incorrect (there
   still is no "server" TLP) or just plain weird (but the lack of a
   server TLP is technically okay because all devs who don't have an
   obvious TLP belong to the "base" TLP by default).  
2. There is nothing at all to ensure that project leads actually do
   represent the devs they supposedly lead or satisfy their
   responsibilities.  Indeed, should a TLP manager go AWOL it is not at
   all obvious how the situation should be resolved.
3. Nothing is being decided at global scope right now.  Some TLP strategic 
   managers rarely attend the managers' meetings, and the managers as a
   whole certainly are not providing any sort of global vision for
   Gentoo right now.
4. Even if the strategic TLP managers were making global decisions for
   Gentoo, the TLP structure is such that almost all devs fall under
   only one or two TLPs.  Thus voting on global issues is hardly
   proportional, and thus many devs feel disenfranchised.
5. Regardless of whether or not it is justified, devrel is loathed by
   many in its enforcement role.

Here's a couple of additional problems identified by the current
metastructure reform proposals:

6. The current system has no mechanism for identifying either projects
   or devs that have gone inactive.
7. Bugs that cut across projects often remain unresolved.
8. GLEPs often linger in an undetermined state.

Specification
=============


A.  A project is a group of developers working towards a goal (or a set
    of goals).

      *  A project exists if it has a web page at
         www.g.o/proj/en/whatever that is maintained.  ("Maintained" means
         that the information on the page is factually correct and not
         out-of-date.)  If the webpage isn't maintained, it is presumed dead.  
      *  It may have one or many leads, and the leads are
         selected by the members of the project.  This selection must
         occur at least once every 12 months, and may occur at any
         time.
      *  It may have zero or more sub-projects.  Sub-projects are
         just projects that provide some additional structure, and their
         web pages are in the project's space.
      *  Not everything (or everyone) needs a project.  
      *  Projects need not be long-term.
      *  Projects may well conflict with other projects.  That's okay.
      *  Any dev may create a new project just by creating a new page
         (or, more realistically, directory and page) in
         ``gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en`` and sending a Request For Comments
         (RFC) e-mail to gentoo-dev.  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.

B.  Global issues will be decided by an elected Gentoo council.

      *  There will be a set number of council members.  (For the
         first election that number was set to 7 by acclamation.)
      *  Council members will be chosen by a general election of all
         devs once per year.
      *  The council must hold an open meeting at least once per month.
      *  Council decisions are by majority vote of those who show up (or
         their proxies).
      *  If a council member (or their appointed proxy) fails to show up for
         two consecutive meetings, they are marked as a slacker.
      *  If a council member who has been marked a slacker misses any further
         meeting (or their appointed proxy doesn't show up), they lose their
         position and a new election is held to replace that person. The newly
         elected council member gets a 'reduced' term so that the yearly
         elections still elect a full group.
      *  Council members who have previously been booted for excessive slacking
         may stand for future elections, including the election for their
         replacement. They should, however, justify their slackerness, and
         should expect to have it pointed out if they don't do so themselves.
      *  The 'slacker' marker is reset when a member is elected.
      *  If any meeting has less than 50% attendance by council members, a new
         election for *all* places must be held within a month. The 'one year'
         is then reset from that point.
      *  Disciplinary actions may be appealed to the council.
      *  A proxy must not be an existing council member, and any single person
         may not be a proxy for more than one council member at any given
         meeting.

Rationale
=========

So, does this proposal solve any of the previously-mentioned problems?  

1. There is no longer any requirement that the project structure be
complete.  Some devs work on very specific parts of the tree, while
some work on practically everything; neither should be shoehorned into
an ad-hoc project structure.  Moreover, it should be easy to create new
projects where needed (and remove them when they are not), which this
proposal should enable.

2. By having the members choose their project leads periodically, the
project leads are necessarily at least somewhat responsible (and hopefully
responsive) to the project members.  This proposal has removed the list of
responsibilities that project leads were supposed to satisfy, since hardly
anybody has ever looked at the original list since it was written.  Instead
the practical responsibility of a lead is "whatever the members require", and
if that isn't satisfied, the members can get a new lead (if they can find
somebody to take the job!).

3. If the council does a lousy job handling global issues (or has no
global vision), vote out the bums.  

4. Since everybody gets to vote for the council members, at least in
principle the council members represent all developers, not just a
particular subset.

5. An appeal process should make disciplinary enforcement both less
capricious and more palatable.

6. This proposal doesn't help find inactive devs or projects.  It
really should not be that much of a problem.  We already have a script for
identifying devs who haven't made a CVS commit within a certain period of
time.  As for moribund projects, if the project page isn't maintained, it's
dead, and we should remove it.  That, too, could be automated.  A much bigger
problem is understaffed herds, but more organization is not necessarily a
solution.

7. The metabug project is a great idea.  Let's do that!  Adding a useful
project shouldn't require "metastructure reform", although with the
current system it does.  With this proposal it wouldn't.

8. This proposal has nothing to say about GLEPs.


Copyright
=========

This document has been placed in the public domain.
1	GLEP: 39
2	Title: An "old-school" metastructure proposal with "boot for being a slacker"
3	Version: $Revision: 1.3 $
4	Last-Modified: $Date: 2007/10/12 02:08:27 $
5	Author: Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@gentoo.org>,
6	Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@gentoo.org>,
7	Status: Accepted
8	Type: Informational
9	Content-Type: text/x-rst
10	Created: 01-Sep-2005
11	Post-History: 01-Sep-2005, 09-Feb-2006, 12-Oct-2007
12
13	Status
14	======
15
16	Implemented. GLEP amended on 09 Feb 2006 to add the final bullet point to
17	list B in `Specification`_.
18
19	Abstract
20	========
21
22	GLEP 4 is replaced with a new "metastructure" that retains established
23	projects (and makes new projects easier to create), but adds a new "Gentoo
24	Council" to handle global (cross-project) issues.
25
26	Motivation
27	==========
28
29	The Fosdem and subsequent reform proposals shepherded by Koon are thorough,
30	extremely detailed, and somewhat complicated. They have a lot of good ideas.
31	For many who have been with Gentoo a long time, though, there's just something
32	about them that they don't really like. More than a few Gentoo devs are
33	almost entirely uninterested in metastructure as long as it doesn't get in
34	their way, and because the current proposals impose at least some order on our
35	unruly devs these proposals are guaranteed to "get in the way" to some degree.
36	For example, a frequent comment that has been heard is that many Gentoo devs
37	don't know who his/her manager (or project lead) is, which is a clear
38	indication that our current system is broken. The existing proposals solve
39	the problem by requiring that each dev belong to a project. Perhaps the part
40	that is broken, though, is the belief that every dev should have a manager.
41	The history of Gentoo is such that traditionally big advances have often been
42	implemented by a single or a small number of dedicated devs (thus our
43	long-standing tradition that devs have access to the entire tree), and surely
44	we do not want to make things harder (or less fun) for such people. So here's
45	a minimal proposal for those who remembers the "good ol' days" and thinks
46	things aren't really so different now.
47
48	Synopsis of the current system:
49
50	* There are 13-15 top-level projects (TLPs). Top-level projects are
51	comprised of sub-projects, and the goal was that every Gentoo
52	project would be a sub-project of one of the TLPs. Supposedly each
53	dev therefore belongs to one or more TLPs.
54	* Each TLP has at least a "strategic" manager, and potentially also an
55	"operational" manager. Only the strategic managers vote on global
56	Gentoo issues.
57	* The managers of each TLP were appointed by drobbins, the other
58	TLP managers, or elected by their project members. These managers
59	have no set term.
60	* Within each TLP the managers are responsible for making decisions
61	about the project, defining clear goals, roadmaps, and timelines
62	for the project, and solving problems that arise within the TLP
63	(see GLEP 4 for the specific list).
64	* The strategic TLP managers are also responsible for deciding issues that
65	affect Gentoo across project lines. The primary mechanism for
66	handling global-scope issues is the managers' meetings.
67	* Disciplinary action taken against erring devs is handled by the
68	"devrel" TLP, unless the dev is a strategic TLP manager. In that
69	case disciplinary action must be enacted by the other strategic TLP
70	managers.
71
72	Problems with the existing system:
73
74	1. The assumption that TLPs are complete is either incorrect (there
75	still is no "server" TLP) or just plain weird (but the lack of a
76	server TLP is technically okay because all devs who don't have an
77	obvious TLP belong to the "base" TLP by default).
78	2. There is nothing at all to ensure that project leads actually do
79	represent the devs they supposedly lead or satisfy their
80	responsibilities. Indeed, should a TLP manager go AWOL it is not at
81	all obvious how the situation should be resolved.
82	3. Nothing is being decided at global scope right now. Some TLP strategic
83	managers rarely attend the managers' meetings, and the managers as a
84	whole certainly are not providing any sort of global vision for
85	Gentoo right now.
86	4. Even if the strategic TLP managers were making global decisions for
87	Gentoo, the TLP structure is such that almost all devs fall under
88	only one or two TLPs. Thus voting on global issues is hardly
89	proportional, and thus many devs feel disenfranchised.
90	5. Regardless of whether or not it is justified, devrel is loathed by
91	many in its enforcement role.
92
93	Here's a couple of additional problems identified by the current
94	metastructure reform proposals:
95
96	6. The current system has no mechanism for identifying either projects
97	or devs that have gone inactive.
98	7. Bugs that cut across projects often remain unresolved.
99	8. GLEPs often linger in an undetermined state.
100
101	Specification
102	=============
103
104
105	A. A project is a group of developers working towards a goal (or a set
106	of goals).
107
108	* A project exists if it has a web page at
109	www.g.o/proj/en/whatever that is maintained. ("Maintained" means
110	that the information on the page is factually correct and not
111	out-of-date.) If the webpage isn't maintained, it is presumed dead.
112	* It may have one or many leads, and the leads are
113	selected by the members of the project. This selection must
114	occur at least once every 12 months, and may occur at any
115	time.
116	* It may have zero or more sub-projects. Sub-projects are
117	just projects that provide some additional structure, and their
118	web pages are in the project's space.
119	* Not everything (or everyone) needs a project.
120	* Projects need not be long-term.
121	* Projects may well conflict with other projects. That's okay.
122	* Any dev may create a new project just by creating a new page
123	(or, more realistically, directory and page) in
124	``gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en`` and sending a Request For Comments
125	(RFC) e-mail to gentoo-dev. Note that this GLEP does not provide for
126	a way for the community at large to block a new project, even if the
127	comments are wholly negative.
128
129	B. Global issues will be decided by an elected Gentoo council.
130
131	* There will be a set number of council members. (For the
132	first election that number was set to 7 by acclamation.)
133	* Council members will be chosen by a general election of all
134	devs once per year.
135	* The council must hold an open meeting at least once per month.
136	* Council decisions are by majority vote of those who show up (or
137	their proxies).
138	* If a council member (or their appointed proxy) fails to show up for
139	two consecutive meetings, they are marked as a slacker.
140	* If a council member who has been marked a slacker misses any further
141	meeting (or their appointed proxy doesn't show up), they lose their
142	position and a new election is held to replace that person. The newly
143	elected council member gets a 'reduced' term so that the yearly
144	elections still elect a full group.
145	* Council members who have previously been booted for excessive slacking
146	may stand for future elections, including the election for their
147	replacement. They should, however, justify their slackerness, and
148	should expect to have it pointed out if they don't do so themselves.
149	* The 'slacker' marker is reset when a member is elected.
150	* If any meeting has less than 50% attendance by council members, a new
151	election for all places must be held within a month. The 'one year'
152	is then reset from that point.
153	* Disciplinary actions may be appealed to the council.
154	* A proxy must not be an existing council member, and any single person
155	may not be a proxy for more than one council member at any given
156	meeting.
157
158	Rationale
159	=========
160
161	So, does this proposal solve any of the previously-mentioned problems?
162
163	1. There is no longer any requirement that the project structure be
164	complete. Some devs work on very specific parts of the tree, while
165	some work on practically everything; neither should be shoehorned into
166	an ad-hoc project structure. Moreover, it should be easy to create new
167	projects where needed (and remove them when they are not), which this
168	proposal should enable.
169
170	2. By having the members choose their project leads periodically, the
171	project leads are necessarily at least somewhat responsible (and hopefully
172	responsive) to the project members. This proposal has removed the list of
173	responsibilities that project leads were supposed to satisfy, since hardly
174	anybody has ever looked at the original list since it was written. Instead
175	the practical responsibility of a lead is "whatever the members require", and
176	if that isn't satisfied, the members can get a new lead (if they can find
177	somebody to take the job!).
178
179	3. If the council does a lousy job handling global issues (or has no
180	global vision), vote out the bums.
181
182	4. Since everybody gets to vote for the council members, at least in
183	principle the council members represent all developers, not just a
184	particular subset.
185
186	5. An appeal process should make disciplinary enforcement both less
187	capricious and more palatable.
188
189	6. This proposal doesn't help find inactive devs or projects. It
190	really should not be that much of a problem. We already have a script for
191	identifying devs who haven't made a CVS commit within a certain period of
192	time. As for moribund projects, if the project page isn't maintained, it's
193	dead, and we should remove it. That, too, could be automated. A much bigger
194	problem is understaffed herds, but more organization is not necessarily a
195	solution.
196
197	7. The metabug project is a great idea. Let's do that! Adding a useful
198	project shouldn't require "metastructure reform", although with the
199	current system it does. With this proposal it wouldn't.
200
201	8. This proposal has nothing to say about GLEPs.
202
203
204	Copyright
205	=========
206
207	This document has been placed in the public domain.