Gentoo Archives: gentoo-nfp

From: Richard Freeman <rich0@g.o>
To: Alistair Bush <ali_bush@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-nfp@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-nfp] Spending money authority
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:30:38
Message-Id: 4850FAAD.1030203@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-nfp] Spending money authority by Alistair Bush
Alistair Bush wrote:
> Richard Freeman wrote: >> Well, if the two bodies have the same constituency I can't see this >> being too likely to happen. > > Why? There are plenty of examples within democracies of Governments > ignoring their constituency when passing law's etc. >
Yes - and when this does happen - it tends to happen regardless of the checks and balances that are put into place.
> > Except that a fork doesn't limit the foundations powers, it just > influences the state of Gentoo after all the developers abandon it. >
If a majority of developers abandon Gentoo (a drastic outcome, I'll admit), I think we can all agree that the state of Gentoo will be far worse than it is now. This is something to be avoided, which in practice limits the foundation's powers, unless the foundation is more focused on proving a point than furthering Gentoo.
> > Really? You read the news don't you? Have learnt some history? Why do > you think most governments have Upper and Lower Houses?
As a check and balance - but in the case of a government we're talking bodies that govern millions of people - not 100 or so. Also - in most cases the upper and lower houses tend to have the same constituencies (which is my whole point). Governments also have sources of revenue sufficient to fund their operation - they don't rely on volunteers to any large degree. That enables them to survive for quite a long time even when they are highly inefficient - if Gentoo were as well-run as a typical government I think most of us would find better places to devote our energy. > There is one
> thing that I want to make clear. I don't want to overly formalise the > whole governance structure gentoo, but I also don't want it to be > ad-hoc. The one problem I see is that Conventions will never work > within an open-source org as developers will change them willy nilly to > prove a point. Therefore, I believe, we need some simple, easy to > follow rules. >
No argument there. But keep in mind that the devs should drive the rules - not the other way around.
>> Both groups have the needs of Gentoo at heart, and as a result >> neither can afford to start a war with the other... > > And yet that won't stop a war from happening. At least if both the > Foundation and the Council have the right to call elections then the > power rest firmly with those who vote. If for instance the Foundation > were to dismiss the Council against the wishes of the large dev > community I would expect the community to vote the Council members back > in and give the Foundation its marching orders. >
Again, that is fine - as long as both have the same constituency. If they have different constituencies then this could turn into a huge mess - as both groups would keep getting re-elected by their different constituencies, and the issues wouldn't actually get resolved. My argument isn't really one of what the council/trustee's authority should be. My point is that for gentoo to be successful these groups need to work well together. We can't really afford for either group to discover a mandate to be an overseer to the other - it will just lead to a massive waste of resources that will only serve to weaken the distro. I don't think it is constructive when we dream up all kinds of scenarios where the two bodies can enter into open war against the other. -- gentoo-nfp@l.g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-nfp] Spending money authority Alistair Bush <ali_bush@g.o>