1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
|
---
GLEP: 39
Title: Gentoo metastructure
Author: Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@gentoo.org>,
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@gentoo.org>
Type: Informational
Status: Final
Version: 3
Created: 2005-09-01
Last-Modified: 2023-05-08
Post-History: 2005-09-01, 2006-02-09, 2007-10-12, 2008-01-19, 2022-11-25,
2023-04-10, 2023-04-16
Content-Type: text/x-rst
Replaces: 4
---
Status
======
Implemented. The metastructure proposal was accepted by a vote of all
Gentoo developers on 2005-06-14 [#Metastructure_vote]_.
GLEP amended on 2006-02-09 to add the final bullet point to list B in
`Specification`_.
Updated by an all-developers vote on 2023-05-08:
* Replace leaving council members by next in line [#Council2007]_.
* Updating this document requires an all-developers vote [#Council2009]_.
* Council members must be developers [#Council2013]_.
* An inquorate council meeting cannot take any substantive action.
* Drop hard requirement of yearly project lead elections.
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.
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 maintained Wiki
project page as described below. ("Maintained" means
that the information on the page is factually correct and not
out-of-date.) If the Wiki page isn't maintained, it is presumed
dead.
* It should have at least one lead, and the leads are selected by
the members of the project. This selection should occur at least
once every 12 months, and may occur at any time. Any member can
demand a lead election if the last election was more than
12 months ago.
* It may have zero or more sub-projects. Sub-projects are
just projects that provide some additional structure, and their
Wiki pages are defined as sub-projects of the parent project.
* 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 project
page on the wiki.gentoo.org (see [#Project_pages]_) 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.
* Council members (and their proxies) must be Gentoo developers.
* 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.
* Whenever a member of the council loses their position (the reason
is irrelevant; e.g. they resign or they are booted for slacking),
then the next person in line from the previous council election
is offered the position. If they accept and the current council
unanimously accepts the new person, they get the position.
Otherwise, it is offered to the next person in line, and so forth.
If the council does not accept that person, then a new election is
held to choose a new member. The new 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. No substantive action can be taken
in any such meeting.
* 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.
Updates to this document
========================
Any major updates to this document (that is, those that change its
content rather than just fixing typos or adding small clarifications)
require a vote of all developers. Eligible voters are all developers
at the time when the proposed update is published. The vote passes if
both of the following conditions are fulfilled:
* The ratio of positive to negative votes is at least two to one, and
* the number of positive votes is no less than one quarter of the number
of eligible voters.
References
==========
.. [#Metastructure_vote] Grant Goodyear, "Metastructure vote preliminary
results", posted to ``gentoo-dev`` mailing list on 2005-06-14,
Message-ID 20050614035141.GC15256\@dst.grantgoodyear.org
(https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/f5ab9ccca62a5d5e0b7b7ab0156f19b3)
.. [#Council2007] 2007-02-08 council meeting
(https://projects.gentoo.org/council/meeting-logs/20070208-summary.txt)
.. [#Council2009] 2009-07-20 council meeting
(https://projects.gentoo.org/council/meeting-logs/20090720-summary.txt),
confirmed on 2011-07-15
(https://projects.gentoo.org/council/meeting-logs/20110715-summary.txt)
.. [#Council2013] 2013-02-12 council meeting
(https://projects.gentoo.org/council/meeting-logs/20130212-summary.txt)
.. [#Project_pages] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_Wiki:Developer_Central/Project_pages
Copyright
=========
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0
International License. To view a copy of this license, visit
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/.
|