While updating my manifesto I've been amused by how little things change. Much of what follows is similar to what I published last year as a result. I'm interested in your feedback as to how things went last year. In general I tried to publish my opinions on the lists before things came to a vote, so if you felt strongly that I was in the wrong, I hope that you at least engaged in discussion at that time. If my decisions were right ones I hope that it was at least in part due to the influence that the larger community was able to exert upon them.
In the real world my job basically consists of making software work for the users who depend on it - using IT to solve real-world problems. Frequently this means working within both technical and legal constraints (for good reason Pharmaceutical manufacture is highly regulated - across multiple jurisdictions), and delivering complete solutions of which the technical component is often but a part. While I can enjoy being a "legal nerd" as much as a "computer nerd," in the end it is getting things done that counts so I'm always a fan of simplicity.
I will not claim to be a laywer by any stretch of the word, but I do have a general understanding of US law and have some exposure to non-profits/etc. I do think I know enough to know when I don't know enough (and need to call for professional help), and that is half of due-diligence.
The last year has been one of dealing with change for virtually every distro. We have everything from Systemd to Unity to MIR to Wayland to Eudev on the horizon or even at our door, with platforms like Android calling into question the very notion of a traditional Linux distro. I think moreso than any other distro Gentoo is actually able to embrace the opportunities while still offering something for those who are happy with what they have.
I generally advocate a council that is both activist and minimally-interfering. I think Council members should be actively debating on the lists and interacting with the community and not just showing up to cast votes. At the same time, the Council should aim to give individual maintainers reasonable discretion, and focus more on inter-dev conflicts.
It is also important for the Council to be involved in the community. Their role in conflict should not be limited to waiting until everybody is worn out with fighting and then casting the final divisive vote in an appeal. Council members should be people that any dev can go to when there is a problem.
Finally, I view the council as the final point of accountability on any technical/operational matter in the distro. That isn't the case today, but I feel that having the Council endorse the QA lead was a step in the right direction.
I think there should be a place in Gentoo for just about anyone. You can contribute without commitment, and if you're a developer you can contribute at whatever level of commitment you feel is appropriate. However, I do believe that holding an office of any kind involves responsibility to the community and not just authority. That applies to the office of Maintainer as much as the office of Council. You don't need to be a Maintainer to work on a package (just be responsible for your commits), but if you are a Maintainer then you have some responsibility to work with those who want to contribute (whether developers or not). If somebody has a really strong technical base but really doesn't want to deal with some of the other Maintainer responsibilities we should try to pair them up with others willing to take on those responsibilities (they don't even have to be devs). I don't want to boot people out for being busy or just disinterested in conversation - I think we need to find ways to support each other.
I'm a libertarian, but also a bit of a socialist. I believe in maximizing individual contribution not as an end in itself, but because this what is usually best for the community. When the two conflict, we have to be here to serve. I get far more out of Gentoo every day than I give back, so I'm happy to contribute what I can. I'd hope that most here feel the same.
While I will always be persuadable to change my mind, I'll go ahead and outline my thoughts on a few contemporary issues, because I think you deserve to know them. Some are responses to questions posted on the lists. These aren't promises - just my voice in the conversation:
I think it might work, but I think it should be a prime minister, not supreme dictator.
I would like to see some kind of accountability to Council beyond just the appeals provision. Perhaps they're appointed, or confirmed, or at least able to be recalled. Maybe some routine reporting of how things are going is appropriate. It can be a two-way street as well - how can Council enable and make these organizations more effective? I think the change to QA was a positive one, and I'd love to see that extended.
In general I'm in favor of minimizing the burden placed on Maintainers to take care of technologies they are not interested in. However, Maintainers cannot block work that others wish to do, and I will not support monopolizing of packages either. Alternate implementations are fine, but should not be the norm, and certainly not if the only reason is because Maintainers refuse to play nicely.
When we ask devs to treat others respectfully we are not asking them to make a sacrifice. This is just how we should operate. If you can't say it nicely, maybe wait until you can, or don't say it at all. Honestly, I liked the Proctor concept - I don't think that Comrel and an outright ban is the right solution for every problem. I'd prefer that we try to nip problems in the bud with a slap before they get out of hand.
Should the council step in without any1 asking them if there are changes about to happen that are a) global and b) highly controversial discussed?
I'll make this real easy. If I think there is something important that should go before the Council I'll be the one to ask them, whether I'm on the Council or not. However, if I am on the Council I plan to use whatever mandate I have to try to influence things before we get to an actual vote. I think the actions of the Council need to be more visible in the day-to-day, with formal policy being a crude instrument best applied infrequently. That isn't to say that I think the Council should go looking to stick its nose into every thread on -dev. However, if is obvious that there are two camps talking past each other there might be room to mediate (which isn't necessarily about picking winners).
As an example: multilib. The council was not involved in that decision between eclass vs multilib-portage. Since any1 is allowed to add eclasses to the tree the decision was somehow implicit, without any real consensus on what the course should be.
In a situation like this I'd really like to see better use of projects and collaboration. There are lots of good ideas out there and rather than having an outside group just pick one we're better off getting the people actually impacted by the decision to try to reach their own decision. The council can then use its position to reinforce the decision.