path: root/glep-0039.rst

---
GLEP: 39
Title: Gentoo metastructure
Author: Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@gentoo.org>,
        Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@gentoo.org>
Type: Informational
Status: Final
Version: 2
Created: 2005-09-01
Last-Modified: 2023-04-10
Post-History: 2005-09-01, 2006-02-09, 2007-10-12, 2008-01-19
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`_.

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)

.. [#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/.