[arch-dev-public] Proposal for a new organisation structure

[Christian Rebischke]

On Sat, Jun 01, 2019 at 04:10:45PM -1000, Public mailing list for Arch Linux development wrote:
> Hi Christian,
> 
> [2019-06-02 01:08:30 +0200] Christian Rebischke via arch-dev-public:
> > inspired by the last thread about moving proprietary software to
> > community, our general problem of getting more people involved in Arch
> > Linux and the (for me) chaotic organisation structure and hierarchy I
> > would like to propose a discussion about changes.
> 
> I seem to recall we've had a similar discussion just a couple of months
> ago but allow me to reiterate some key points.
> 
> First, contrary to what you keep saying, the process by which devs make
> decisions is very clear: by discussing things until a consensus emerges.
> In extreme cases where a consensus cannot be reached, we can take a vote
> or let our leader decide, but this has never happened in the nine years
> I've been a dev.

Hi Gaetan,
Thanks for your mail. I remember now that you have told me this some
months ago. This leads to a question: Why are these types of dicussions
not public?

> I've been a dev. To the best of my knowledge, we're all very happy with
> this system and do not want to change it.

Who do you mean with 'we'? Are you sure you speak for all devs and TUs
here?

> Second, our current organizational structure has served us well for many
> years. What problem are you trying to solve by overhauling it? What
> piece of evidence do you have that your suggestions will fix those
> problems? I'm certainly going to support imposing more bureaucracy just
> for the sake of bureaucracy. Again, if a certain system works for TUs,
> I'm glad and I'm certainly not going to impose my views on how TUs work;
> after all, that's why the TUs were made a self-governing body.

Well, that's point. I don't really think the current system works as it
could be. Why being happy with the current state of organisation if we
could achieve much more with a more simplified and more contributor
friendly model? And this 'self-governing body' is exactly what I don't
like. It increases this 'we and them' like thinking. Furthermore my
suggestions are not the best solution, it was just a start for
discussing our current structure. If you and the others see no point in
changing the current structure this is totally fine, I just think it's
important to rethink processes from time over time.

> 
> Cheers.
> 
> -- 
> Gaetan


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/attachments/20190602/9d069d9a/attachment.sig>