Re: [gentoo-nfp] Section 4.1 Member Classes

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

First off this is way OT now. This thread is on a particular section of
the bylaws. We the trustees are trying to review and revise.

On Fri, 2008-05-23 at 02:36 +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
>
> > Representing the community was the foundations intention, but over time.
> > As the foundation was neglected, it seems that was never realized.
>
> I was around when the foundation got there and even before...

Then as a foundation member. You are partly responsible for it's failure
year after year. Ever since it was formed. No reporting beyond 2005,
ending with revocation in 2007.

> >>> Some of our longest contributing members to Gentoo Java, aren't devs,
> >>> nor will they ever be. They don't want to be. Some even have their own
> >>> overlays. So guess they should not have any say or input.
> >> You just told me that their input has been treasured by the java team,
> >
> > Does it mean it was passed on to the council?
>
> Was it needed? Anything prevented anybody to pass it on?

Not sure. You would have to ask the community members not me. As I do
not represent or speak for them as a developer.

> > Does it mean that if they want me to do something I do?
>
> No and that is wonderful. You are free to waste your time in any way you
> like, as long you don't damage the others. The subtle beauty of freedom.

So who represents them? Who represents the community?

> > Does it mean I represent them and their will?
>
> In which aspect? Their will about gentoo and java? If you value and
> treasure their input as you told me, I think they could consider that
> you are pretty much doing that.

It's not about that. They might be working on something that doesn't
interest me.

> Not that you aren't threating of adding a large deal of bureaucracy
> right now, is it?

Look there is a need for organization. The initial wording of the
foundation charter, straight up says the foundation is a result of
increased size.

I am not a fan of bureaucracy, but I am a fan of structure and
organization. Without you get chaos, and we have that on so many fronts.

>  (c.f the twin email in which you take the letter of a
> glep as a weapon against me apparently)

Um, did you not see all the emails where I was fighting GLEP 39? You
mentioned the word rules. Which the council is at the top of all. Yet
the council doesn't seem to want to enforce their own rules against
themselves. Which all developers, the community, trustees, etc are
powerless to do anything about.

I am not using it against you. But as a council member. You have an
elected duty to serve (which I have a duty as well to serve). That you
are not doing now. Any time spent commenting here. Could go to starting
an election. Or following rules and procedures specific to the council.

Or even better, comment on the GLEP 39 issue. Which I do not believe a
single council member has commented on in public. No comments, and no
action toward a council election.

> People who tried to move from inc. to a nfp org.

It is a NPO organization, 501c6. Inc has nothing to do with the type of
entity. No more than anything else in the name. Incorporation does not
imply profit.

> I think everybody could dig the discussion about why  501c6 and not
> 501c3, I couldn't care less since I'm European and by that time I wasn't
> that interested on the issue.

What discussion? Daniel went to his attorney, whom we just retained for
the reinstatement. He enacted Daniels will, and what Daniel paid him
for. There might have been side discussions, but I am not sure that had
anything to do with Daniels choice over 501c6 over c3. Only Daniel or
Mr. Chew if he can, could comment about that.

Based on how it seemed Daniel operated in the past. I don't think he
asked anyone's permission when he resigned and created the foundation.
Thus I would find it surprising for him to poll, and act on majority wrt
to the type of foundation he was to create.

> > Never has anyone ever legally been able to donate to and write off as a
> > charitable donation. Any amount to the Gentoo Foundation, ever. It's not
> > that type of legal entity.
>
> I know, it was supposed to be something else from start.

In how it functions, and it's mission. Not the type of legal entity it
is.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.
amd64/Java/Trustees
Gentoo Foundation