1 |
I'm separating out this email to contain just the responses to various |
2 |
questions and concerns. I'll send another separate thread with the |
3 |
updated text. |
4 |
|
5 |
1. External control of Gentoo. |
6 |
|
7 |
I don't think there's much stopping us from investigating this as a |
8 |
possible option in the future but I think that this is mostly orthogonal |
9 |
to this proposal. Whatever the new 'board' would do would would just be |
10 |
reduced if we do choose external control. |
11 |
|
12 |
SPI has been mentioned a couple of times and if anyone wants to |
13 |
contact them to work something out to propose to the foundation I don't |
14 |
think there's anything stopping you :D |
15 |
|
16 |
2. Every developer becoming a member of foundation. |
17 |
|
18 |
First, 'developer' in this sense means what used to mean 'staff or |
19 |
developer'. |
20 |
|
21 |
Rich0's proposal to make this optional (I'd like to default to |
22 |
enabled) seems like a good solution. We'd still have one voting pool |
23 |
but simply allow people to opt out. |
24 |
|
25 |
|
26 |
3. US Embargo. |
27 |
|
28 |
We are already a US organization, that, in my non-lawyer mind, means |
29 |
we already have to deal with this. Just because a developer is a member |
30 |
of the project and not directly under the foundation does not mean the |
31 |
foundation can ignore US embargo policy. |
32 |
|
33 |
That said, I don't really think this has been a problem in the past and |
34 |
will likely not be a problem in the future. |
35 |
|
36 |
4. Why is the existing model bad? (more info) |
37 |
|
38 |
We have two voting pools that can be divergent in their goals. What |
39 |
would happen if the foundation wanted x and the council wanted !x? |
40 |
|
41 |
5. We should have a BDFL (more or less) |
42 |
|
43 |
I don't agree with this personally and it is not the goal of this |
44 |
proposal to move to that model. |
45 |
|
46 |
6. Liability increase by having all devs be members of the Foundation. |
47 |
|
48 |
William summed it up pretty well, 'working on the project makes you |
49 |
and the project more liable than being a member'. |
50 |
|
51 |
7. Exclusion of the community. |
52 |
|
53 |
I don't think this is as much a problem as people think. The |
54 |
definition of 'developer' changed about a year ago to mean what used to |
55 |
be 'staff or developer'. So anyone who is what used to be called staff |
56 |
(which I think people applying to the foundation should probably be |
57 |
considered) would have representation (through their vote). |
58 |
|
59 |
8. Merging the voting pools. |
60 |
|
61 |
The process for this will be better defined in the next version of the |
62 |
proposal. |
63 |
|
64 |
9. Members of the 'board' having conflicts with their job. |
65 |
|
66 |
I'm, not sure about this as it's likely case by case. But I |
67 |
personally don't see this causing much more issues than what is already |
68 |
caused by working on an open source project. |
69 |
|
70 |
-- |
71 |
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire) |