1 |
On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Chrissy Fullam <musikc@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> Refer to bylaws that were approved in today's Trustee meeting: |
3 |
> |
4 |
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~neddyseagoon/docs/FoundationBylawsProposed_7.xml |
5 |
> |
6 |
> |
7 |
> |
8 |
> I cannot understand why a person cannot be on the Council and on the |
9 |
> Trustees? We had someone do so in the past and no conflicts or issues arose. |
10 |
> What is the reasoning that a person cannot serve on the technical team and |
11 |
> the legal team? |
12 |
|
13 |
a) Should the member go missing we would be down 1 position in both |
14 |
bodies, a subcase of Single Point of Failure. |
15 |
b) I worry about time constraints with one person being on two |
16 |
important bodies in a volunteer organization eg; fulfilling both roles |
17 |
properly. |
18 |
c) Limitations of Power. This bylaw limits the damage done by one |
19 |
person. It is SOXish; it takes two to tango; two people to be |
20 |
malicious in some use cases. |
21 |
d) Past performance does not indicate future returns. Just because we |
22 |
have not had troubles in the past with this does not mean we will not |
23 |
have trouble with it in the future. |
24 |
|
25 |
> |
26 |
> Please note: that I do not see validity in the statement 'what if Council |
27 |
> asks for money and dual role person on the Trustee approves it' as I think |
28 |
> that person would hold the same opinion regardless of being on both teams |
29 |
> unless we are saying that we cannot trust our Council people to not make |
30 |
> decisions in the best interest of Gentoo. |
31 |
|
32 |
I trust the council to make the best *technical* decisions for Gentoo; |
33 |
that is why I voted for the people I did. |
34 |
That has nothing to do with making legal/funding decisions as the |
35 |
council has no say in those matters. |
36 |
|
37 |
Your use case is invalid in the general case as funding requests of |
38 |
any kind require majority approval by the board of trustees per: |
39 |
http://www.gentoo.org/foundation/en/requesting-funds.xml |
40 |
|
41 |
More specific use cases that may or may not be illegal. |
42 |
|
43 |
I am Treasurer and on Council; I get a motion in council approved by a |
44 |
slim margin. I skip the approval process from the rest of the board |
45 |
and just cut a check because I'm Treasurer. Legal? Maybe...it is |
46 |
hard to say how binding the xml on that document is. |
47 |
|
48 |
I am a Trustee and on the Council; I get a motion in council approved |
49 |
by a slim margin and because I am trustee I only need N -1 / 2 votes |
50 |
(a majority of all trustees that are not me) to pass my motion. In |
51 |
the case of an odd number of trustees this means I can pass motions |
52 |
with 1 less vote than other motions which is an advantage. Legal? Yes |
53 |
if the bylaw is repealed ;) |
54 |
|
55 |
Most of these specific use cases can be removed by adding a bylaw |
56 |
stating that a trustee that is also a council member must recuse |
57 |
himself in decisions in both bodies that affect each other. So if I |
58 |
vote in council on a motion that requires funding; I cannot vote in |
59 |
the trustee vote to approve it; this negates my 1 vote advantage. |
60 |
|
61 |
Recusal enables said person to participate in both bodies in what I'll |
62 |
term 'a majority' of decisions. |
63 |
|
64 |
-Alec |
65 |
|
66 |
> |
67 |
> |
68 |
> |
69 |
> Kind regards, |
70 |
> Christina Fullam |
71 |
> Gentoo Developer Relations Lead | Gentoo Public Relations |