| 1 |
On Mon, 2008-05-19 at 21:36 +0100, Steve Long wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Yeah but I disagree that the Council is limited to CTO, since the whole pupose |
| 4 |
> of Gentoo is to develop software. I'd argue the Trustees are a Supervisory |
| 5 |
> Board, and the Council an Executive Board within the two-tier model. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
CTO is an executive position and title. Given full control over R&D, |
| 8 |
technology, technical direction, etc. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
But the council is not over the foundation wrt to hierarchy. It's |
| 11 |
supposed to be a subsidiary board. For example, Council dictates to |
| 12 |
infra. But infra lacks what they need to make council happy. Decision to |
| 13 |
approve/fund, lies with foundation. So who's the top? ( not meant in |
| 14 |
terms of power ) |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Something happens technically and Gentoo is sued. Does council then step |
| 17 |
in and represent Gentoo. No the foundation does, and take full blame and |
| 18 |
responsibility for councils actions or etc. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
In a case like the present, where the council is to be replaced per some |
| 21 |
policy. There is no entity over the council to see that through. Because |
| 22 |
of our current structure. Nor are there any checks or balances. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
More to the point that this hurts Gentoo technically. While companies |
| 25 |
like Redhat can partner with say Intel. Making sure their stuff is |
| 26 |
certified on Intel hardware. There would need to be liaisons if that was |
| 27 |
to happen for Gentoo. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Like say the council says we want to support Intel's newest yet to be |
| 30 |
released chipset. They mention that to the board/officers. Whom then in |
| 31 |
turn contact Intel and facilitate a vendor relationship. Which is then |
| 32 |
handed back to the council, to see through technically. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Again normal organization like you would see in any normal business |
| 35 |
entity. Which the Gentoo Foundation is a business entity, so should have |
| 36 |
some structure to reflect that. Given how chaotic at times our existing |
| 37 |
structure is, or lack there of. I can see it making a huge difference in |
| 38 |
the long run. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
> The portage team strike me more as the CTO in that setup though I admit your |
| 41 |
> knowledge of these titles outweighs mine ;) |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
What does the portage team have to do wrt to R&D, or technical direction |
| 44 |
of Gentoo as a whole? Portage is just one piece of the pie, that the |
| 45 |
council oversees, decides the recipe, and bakes. Thus CTO, there is no |
| 46 |
one beyond the CTO on technical matters. They are the top, and they |
| 47 |
report in layman's to the CEO/Officers, and board at times if they are |
| 48 |
split. For decisions that might involve them or to simply keep them |
| 49 |
informed or in the loop. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
Put it like this, Council answers to devs. Foundation answers to |
| 52 |
community. At some point the council should answer to the Foundation as |
| 53 |
well. Otherwise the community has no voice, only developers. |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
Although the Foundation, board/officers, will never dictate to the |
| 56 |
council/CTO on technical matters. At best only suggest, based on the |
| 57 |
will of the community, vendors, or etc. What the council does from |
| 58 |
there, is up to them. As it is now. Because after all they know what is |
| 59 |
best technically, and that's their call to make in the end. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
-- |
| 62 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |
| 63 |
amd64/Java/Trustees |
| 64 |
Gentoo Foundation |
Archives