Foundation Talk:Gentoo History

From Gentoo Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Note
This is a talk page. Please add newer comments below older ones, and sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). When adding a new section (at the bottom of the page), please mark it as "open for discussion" by using {{talk|open}} so it will show up in the list of open discussions.

Impartiality

Talk status
This discussion is done as of May 4, 2017.

As this is a more or less official document, shouldn't it be a tad more impartial? Dilfridge (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments and contributions welcome.--NeddySeagoon (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
If you want me to edit this document, I will do so. I joined the foundation to help get the docs up to snuff (how's that for impartial. :P). --Maffblaster (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

HTTPS

Talk status
This discussion is done as of 2017-10-23.

Please consider using HTTPS for the following link: http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/council/index.xml?revision=1.1&view=markup

Fturco (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for reporting! Zlg (talk) 03:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Outdated links

Talk status
This discussion is done as of 2017-10-23.

Since GLEPs have been moved out of the wiki, there are two links to GLEP 39 which should be updated to https://www.gentoo.org/glep/glep-0039.html. --ulm (talk) 18:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for reporting! Zlg (talk) 03:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Minor improvements

Talk status
This discussion is still ongoing as of 2018-04-16.
  1. cafepress.com supports HTTPS now; we should update the link in the article
  2. There's a missing apostrophe in "Gentoos assets"; it occurs twice in the article
  3. There's a missing whitespace in "and the TLP leads,without the Chief Architect"
  4. The following link should be fixed (too many square brackets): https://projects.gentoo.org/foundation/2016/
  5. It's better to use the word "distribution" rather than the more informal word "distro"

Fturco (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Factual mistakes and highly biased opinions

Talk status
This discussion is still ongoing as of 2018-05-20.

So with the evidence lately uncovered (in particular gentoo-trustees archives), it seems that this article is not only biased but also includes a fair number of factual mistakes. What I've noticed so far:

As a part of Daniels retirement, the not for profit Gentoo Foundation Inc. was formed.

The evidence suggests that the work on NFP has started long before Daniel decided to retire. FWIU, he originally wanted NFP to run in parallel to GT. He also originally planned to be a Trustee in the NFP.

until in 2007 some papers went astray in the post, the annual returns did not reach New Mexico authorities and the Gentoo Foundation Inc. fell into bad standing. That lead to a lot of noise on the gentoo-nfp mailing list and elections for new trustees were held in early 2008.

I don't see the connection between those facts. Elections for new Trustees were held annually, so I don't see how 'lot of noise' (which is highly opinionated and doesn't belong in 'history' document) would be related to holding an election. Furthermore, the trouble inside the Foundation seems to date back to 2006 elections where there were 7 nominees, and where they resigned almost immediately after being elected.

Perhaps the Gentoo leadership missed a trick when the council was formed. Gentoo could have been organised as a standard corporation then but historically, Gentoo Technologies Inc. had been kept visibly separate from the distribution and the Gentoo Foundation was more formally set up in the same manner.

This is highly biased opinion whose purpose here seems to be entirely political. In other words, it does not belong in 'history', unless it's a version of history specially suited for somebody's political purposes.

The Future of Gentoo

This whole section is highly-biased opinion that is completely unrelated to history of Gentoo. Furthermore, it presents only a single point of view, invents problems that are not proved by any evidence and wrongly suggests users that the Foundation is moving towards a corporate model which is not true.

-- Michał Górny (talk) 10:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Selection of TLP leads

Talk status
This discussion is still ongoing as of 2018-05-20.

Another factual inaccuracy:

"Top level project leads were appointed rather than voted for - there was much less democracy, which may have been a good thing for the pace of development. Gentoo was smaller then and easier for one person to manage."

This is not correct. To begin with, GLEP 4 doesn't define how managers were to be selected. In the 2003-12-15 managers' meeting, managers themselves acknowledge that the procedure was ill-defined:

"[...] during the meeting it became clear that the method of electing a new manager was far from well-defined, and instead a long discussion about the procedure for electing managers took place. One important point was that the voice of the developers and the managers would have to be balanced so that leaders who would work well with both groups could be in place." (GWN 2004-01-05)

Shortly after that, approval of two new desktop leads took place "after a poll held on -core and discussions within the management teams" (GWN 2004-01-19).

Finally, managers approved a procedure for confirming new managers in their 2004-05-17 meeting:

"[...] requiring a supermajority of managers (66%) to confirm new managers [...] was ratified" (GWN 2004-05-17)

So apparently managers were not appointed by the chief architect. They were confimed by the other managers, but not without giving developers a voice. --ulm (talk) 15:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)