1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
3 |
|
4 |
Richard, |
5 |
|
6 |
I've seen fmccors reply, let me have a got too. |
7 |
|
8 |
On 2008.09.02 23:16, Richard Freeman wrote: |
9 |
> Roy Bamford wrote: |
10 |
> > The three remaining trustees were also nominated to stand for |
11 |
> election |
12 |
> > for the council. Had they all accepted and been elected to the |
13 |
> council, |
14 |
> > today we would be in the position of having trustees being a subset |
15 |
> of |
16 |
> > council. That would have totally destroyed the council/foundation |
17 |
> split |
18 |
> > that was one of the reasons the two bodies were created. |
19 |
> > |
20 |
> > We need rules to stop that situation from occuring. |
21 |
> > |
22 |
> |
23 |
> Is this the case? That we need to stop the council/trustees from |
24 |
> overlapping? Is it true that the council/foundation split was one of |
25 |
> the reasons the two bodies were created? |
26 |
It wasn't that simple - I'll add some history further down. |
27 |
> |
28 |
> My understanding is that the reason we have two bodies is so that |
29 |
> people |
30 |
> can contribute to either the council and/or the trustees based on |
31 |
> their |
32 |
> enthusiasm or ability to contribute, without being required to |
33 |
> contribute to both. Also - due to the foundation being a US |
34 |
> corporation |
35 |
> it is likely the case that we can't have non-US-residents holding |
36 |
> board |
37 |
> positions. So, the split is a practical matter - not a matter of |
38 |
> principle per se. |
39 |
|
40 |
There have been a number of non US citizen trustees over the years. |
41 |
I'm the only one at the moment. Three of the original 13 trustees were |
42 |
non-US citizens. There are some roles that are more difficult for a non |
43 |
US citizen to perform, like treasurer, which requires dealing with |
44 |
cheques. |
45 |
> |
46 |
> I wasn't seriously involved back when the trustees were created so I |
47 |
> won't presume to argue that I really know all the reasons for it |
48 |
> being a separate body. However, I don't think that really matters - |
49 |
> the only thing that matters is if we think it should be forced to be |
50 |
> such today. |
51 |
|
52 |
The two bodies were created at different times - I was not a developer |
53 |
at the time so some of this is hearsay ... |
54 |
The Gentoo Foundation Inc was created on 14th May 2004 (ref Articles of |
55 |
Incorporation) as a part of the process of Daniel Robbins (our founder) |
56 |
extracting himself from Gentoo. |
57 |
Daniel held the post of Chief Archietect and pretty much ran gentoo as |
58 |
a benevolent dictator. He also had a business orgainsation known as |
59 |
Gentoo Technologies Inc which owned Gentoos trademarks and IPR. |
60 |
|
61 |
As part of Daniels leaving, the Foundation was set up and the Gentoo |
62 |
Technologies Inc trademarks and IPR transferred to it. (Thats legally |
63 |
documented too.) The intent of the foundation is stated in the |
64 |
introduction to the Foundation Charter. |
65 |
http://www.gentoo.org/foundation/en/ |
66 |
Its clear it was intended to be separate from the technical part of |
67 |
Gentoo. |
68 |
|
69 |
At this time, technical leadership of Gentoo was left to the Top Level |
70 |
Project leads. It was not yet the council - that came later. |
71 |
|
72 |
The council was created by GLEP 39 |
73 |
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0039.html from that it appears |
74 |
that the GLEP was created on 01-Sep-2005 and adoped on 09-Feb-2006, |
75 |
nearly two years after the creation of the Foundation. |
76 |
|
77 |
It follows that the Foundation was created to replace Gentoo |
78 |
Technologies Inc, leaving the old (beneth Daniel) technical leadership |
79 |
untouched and the council came into being as a solution to the |
80 |
increasing number of top level projects some time later. |
81 |
|
82 |
In a nutshell, we have two bodies today because its always been that |
83 |
way. Gentoo Technologies became the Forundation and the top level |
84 |
project leads became the council. |
85 |
|
86 |
> |
87 |
> In my opinion the benefits of joint council/trustee membership |
88 |
> outweigh |
89 |
> the downside. However, I'm sure things will go on fine either way - |
90 |
> I'll trust the trustees/council to make the right decision. |
91 |
|
92 |
I think thats a somewhat simplistic view of the world. In the legal/ |
93 |
business environment that the Foundation operates in we cannot trust to |
94 |
luck and we should not trust individuals to do 'the right thing'. Often |
95 |
different groups have different views of what the 'right thing' is. |
96 |
|
97 |
As I have explained the two bodies were created at different times to |
98 |
solve different problems. I would venture to guess that there was no |
99 |
thought given to creating a more normal corporate structure for Gentoo |
100 |
when Daniel departed. |
101 |
|
102 |
Now back to your point. I am convinced that the two bodies should |
103 |
staffed by separate individuals as they serve two different purposes |
104 |
and represnet two different (but overlapping) groups. I agree that the |
105 |
groups could be merged into a more usual corporate structure but |
106 |
only by a deliberate act by both groups (or their leaders). It would be |
107 |
wrong to permit one group to *accidently* be lead by a subset of the |
108 |
other. |
109 |
|
110 |
- -- |
111 |
Regards, |
112 |
|
113 |
Roy Bamford |
114 |
(NeddySeagoon) a member of |
115 |
gentoo-ops |
116 |
forum-mods |
117 |
treecleaners |
118 |
trustees |
119 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
120 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) |
121 |
|
122 |
iEYEARECAAYFAki+wFEACgkQTE4/y7nJvatUSQCg1vfZ6aHTa8asMTz6xXQZ8cTo |
123 |
UJAAmwQkbU/HHVkfppJVdhAUltqxUWOg |
124 |
=QUK1 |
125 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |