1 |
On Thu, 2011-03-31 at 14:17 +0000, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> The bylaws approved in 2008 were subject to a public discussion in the |
4 |
> mailing list. Even though I wasn't a trustee and don't have any "inside |
5 |
> information" about the discussion within the team, I did talk about them |
6 |
> with other trustees. Whether William "lead" that discussion within |
7 |
> Trustees is something only the other members can answer, |
8 |
|
9 |
You can look in the archives to see who made every post on each section |
10 |
of the bylaws. |
11 |
|
12 |
> but even though |
13 |
> he was very vocal in the public, we was not the only Trustee involved on |
14 |
> the discussion and the approved bylaws are not what he initially pushed |
15 |
> for. |
16 |
|
17 |
I resigned right before there was a vote on the bylaws. There were no |
18 |
changes between when I resigned and the vote. |
19 |
|
20 |
> Some members of the community, me included, did participate in the |
21 |
> discussion and expressed their views about the bylaws. |
22 |
> A "legal" system may take into account the "desire" or "purpose" of a |
23 |
> legislator when a particular piece of legislation was approved, but first |
24 |
> and foremost it tries to pursue the compliance with the approved text |
25 |
> (written text). Furthermore, when taking into account the "desire" or |
26 |
> "purpose" of the legislator, it will look at the global discussion and the |
27 |
> several alternatives submitted for discussion, it won't rely simply in the |
28 |
> will or word of one of the legislators. |
29 |
|
30 |
The discussions are in the archives for anyone to re-read. |
31 |
|
32 |
> So you may disagree with the interpretation of the bylaws of the current |
33 |
> trustees, you may even argue that it goes against what you were trying to |
34 |
> do, but that doesn't mean they've necessarily diverged from the global |
35 |
> intent at the time the bylaws were approved. Nor does it mean you |
36 |
> (individual, former trustee) have any special authority to "judge" the |
37 |
> compliance. |
38 |
|
39 |
Again I know what I had written, and why. You can question that all you |
40 |
like, but I was making lots of changes. Other trustees did participate, |
41 |
but I was taking lead and made most efforts with regard to bylaws |
42 |
authoring and review. Which is very clear in the archives of this |
43 |
mailing list. |
44 |
|
45 |
> About having 5 trustees, that's a number that members seem comfortable |
46 |
> with and that no one up until now has contested (trustes and foundation |
47 |
> members). |
48 |
|
49 |
I am a foundation member, and I am contesting it. Not to mention former |
50 |
trustee, who helped to author the current bylaws. |
51 |
|
52 |
> About having more, I still recall us having 13 members was seen on 2007 / |
53 |
> 2008 as one of the reasons things got where they did back then. |
54 |
|
55 |
Do you recall how many there were when you ran the election back in |
56 |
2008? There was maybe 2-3 active. Which I can only recall Grant Goodyear |
57 |
and Chris Gianelloni. I have no idea where you are getting the 13 number |
58 |
from in 2007. That simply is not accurate, do you have anything to |
59 |
support that? When was the last election prior to 2008? |
60 |
|
61 |
> So, even |
62 |
> though having more members could, in theory, help, we should be careful to |
63 |
> ensure that we don't get again to a point where no one knows what's going |
64 |
> on or thinks another member is working on an issue, when no one is. |
65 |
|
66 |
There was specific intention when the foundation was created when |
67 |
setting the number of trustees. Which was not modified when the current |
68 |
bylaws were drafted, nor approved by a vote. |
69 |
|
70 |
> Back in 2007 / 2008 you did some noise that lead to increased attention to |
71 |
> the Foundation and that lead the Board of Trustees to finally call for an |
72 |
> election. |
73 |
|
74 |
The board had no choice, time for elections was past due. I also found |
75 |
election officials, which I guess you forgot that aspect as well. Which |
76 |
you should well know having been on of the officials. I was the one who |
77 |
got you involved in that. |
78 |
|
79 |
Subject: Election Officials Update |
80 |
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/msg_6226f44caa2fa8df19c187ad1f3d9057.xml |
81 |
|
82 |
That was after you accepted a call for help on the matter |
83 |
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/msg_c69304fefc282286a8210bc7e7f92505.xml |
84 |
|
85 |
> However, you had no role whatsoever in the running of the election[1] and |
86 |
> in making sure members could vote[2], tallying the votes and publishing |
87 |
> the results[3]. |
88 |
|
89 |
I love how you forgot that I got you involved in that. I went around and |
90 |
found election officials, as show in previous links. Which I had to |
91 |
inquire if that was a conflict of interest later since I was running in |
92 |
the election. Not sure if I still have that email. |
93 |
|
94 |
> To clear any doubts that your comments about later elections may have |
95 |
> cast, for those that didn't or don't follow the mailing lists, the reason |
96 |
> we didn't have a "voting" for the 2010 election[4] was that the number of |
97 |
> candidates was the same as the number of open seats[5]. |
98 |
|
99 |
Which should basically be the case now. Till the maximum number of |
100 |
trustees is reached, there likely should be no elections. That would |
101 |
have been true back in 2008. However it was best given the turmoil for |
102 |
members to choose trustees via a vote. Rather than just accept any |
103 |
volunteer for the role. |
104 |
|
105 |
> I, as a foundation member, am very happy with the job done by the current |
106 |
> trustees. |
107 |
|
108 |
What have they done? Specifically? Is financial accounting not part of |
109 |
the mission of the foundation? Do you accept the job they have done with |
110 |
that? Having large sums of money unaccounted for, discrepancies in |
111 |
accounting, and mandated filings not being done? |
112 |
|
113 |
Really its enough patting on the back. They have not done anything |
114 |
substantial, and that is a problem. I am not saying I dislike them or do |
115 |
not appreciate any efforts. Just the necessary and mandated financial |
116 |
matters have not been addressed. Which is half of the mission behind the |
117 |
foundation, legal and financial. |
118 |
|
119 |
> I don't consider everything is perfect, but by paying attention |
120 |
> to the meetings logs and seeing trustees actions, I'm convinced they are |
121 |
> very much concerned and dedicated to their roles. Could things be better? |
122 |
> Sure, but such is life, even more on a volunteer organization. |
123 |
|
124 |
What actions? Again they have neglected one of the most important |
125 |
aspects of their duties and role. There is no getting around that, its |
126 |
unacceptable. This is OTHER peoples money! |
127 |
|
128 |
> As a subscriber to this ml I have no doubt about your opinion on the |
129 |
> current state of affairs or the current trustees. Any doubt was cleared |
130 |
> many emails ago. |
131 |
|
132 |
Its not an opinion, its fact. Things are not getting done, and you |
133 |
cannot claim that to be my opinion. No evidence or anything has been |
134 |
produced to show that they are doing their job. Even if they made |
135 |
miracles happen on the legal side, the ball has been dropped on the |
136 |
financial side. |
137 |
|
138 |
> Curiously, you were the one trying to promote a change in the bylaws so |
139 |
> that the Foundation could pay to developers. It took much resistance from |
140 |
> the rest of the community for you to drop that idea. |
141 |
|
142 |
Please provide a link to such a claim and accusation, which is factually |
143 |
incorrect. You might be referring to this post, which very few commented |
144 |
on. |
145 |
|
146 |
Subject: What could the Gentoo Foundation do with money? |
147 |
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/msg_e3825ceed1a9eabb4d1438e919bdc63a.xml |
148 |
|
149 |
I went out of my way to remove provisions in the bylaws that allowed |
150 |
trustees to pay themselves. I did that as a trustee, when I could have |
151 |
paid myself. I believe that was discussed internally amongst trustees. I |
152 |
will provide some evidence, if I still have those emails. |
153 |
|
154 |
Also many in the community are interested in having paid development or |
155 |
things of that nature in Gentoo. Including members of the current board. |
156 |
How that comes about is up to others. |
157 |
|
158 |
To be 100% clear, at no time then or now was I personally ever seeking |
159 |
to get paid. What is so wrong about trying to help others get paid for |
160 |
their efforts? Is that not the idea behind GSoC? What is the difference |
161 |
between using Google's money or the money donated to Gentoo? Not to |
162 |
mention in this economy, I am sure no developer could use extra funds or |
163 |
money from helping to further Gentoo. |
164 |
|
165 |
Now if you understood what I was talking about then, and even now. Only |
166 |
core positions would be paid. Things that are crucial to Gentoo, and top |
167 |
level positions. The avg developer would not be paid. Please if your |
168 |
going to comment on such things. Make sure you are fully aware of the |
169 |
situation and intentions, and/or provide links or references to support |
170 |
your statements. |
171 |
|
172 |
-- |
173 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |
174 |
Obsidian-Studios, Inc. |
175 |
http://www.obsidian-studios.com |