| 1 |
On Sat, 2008-05-24 at 21:45 -0700, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> I don't think his 'dream' of the foundation is necessarily relevant. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
Who created the foundation? |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> What I think solar is trying to say is that there are a number of |
| 8 |
> foundation members who view the foundation as just an IP holder. It |
| 9 |
> exists because in 'meatspace' we are required to have a legal entity |
| 10 |
> to hold shared IP. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I understand that point of view. But even in that limited scope the |
| 13 |
foundation was being neglected. Much less any other areas. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> Not everyone wants to have tons of cash, corporate sponsors, large |
| 16 |
> conferences, etc. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Understandable, and anything like being discussed would likely be put to |
| 19 |
a member vote. Likely have to be voted on else where as well, like by |
| 20 |
developers separate of the foundation members. Depending on what is |
| 21 |
being voted on. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> I think you will find that a number of folks would disagree with |
| 24 |
> putting anything like that in the bylaws because the foundation is not |
| 25 |
> intended to have anything to do with development at large. It is |
| 26 |
> intended as a IP holding entity; nothing else. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
So why not spell out in the document that declares how the foundation |
| 29 |
operates, that the board and officers have nothing to do with |
| 30 |
development. This would give the council legal power as well over |
| 31 |
technical aspects. Not just the informal power it has now. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Which if you notice in proposed bylaws. I posted a section the other day |
| 34 |
that sort implies the foundation can start and have full control over |
| 35 |
projects. Pretty interesting and I would like to see removed. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
If we are spelling out aspects of the foundation, why not include the |
| 38 |
council. Not all things, but power scope, meeting time frame, |
| 39 |
requirements, election procedures etc. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
One legal document for it all. Instead of the various GLEPs, docs on our |
| 42 |
elections, etc. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
> I'm not saying that view is right or wrong and I wholly expect changes |
| 45 |
> anyway; just be aware that a number of developers see things that way |
| 46 |
> and that is why they are so concerned by all the 'businessy' stuff; |
| 47 |
> since the foundation was not created to do those things (hence a |
| 48 |
> second corp). |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
The view of those that were supposed to oversee the foundation that |
| 51 |
another created with a different vision. I do respect their view, but |
| 52 |
again. They did not create the foundation. Had the foundation been |
| 53 |
maintained even as they envision. I might feel different. |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
But regardless of Daniel's vision. He is/was 100% correct on one thing. |
| 56 |
Since it's inception the foundation has largely been a failure. There is |
| 57 |
no reporting since 05, with the culmination of the revocation in 07. So |
| 58 |
1 out of 3.5 or so years. Not much of a track record, even with limited |
| 59 |
scope. As for interest, well 13 down to 5, and no election in 07. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
Had Daniel envisioned what would become of the foundation. He likely |
| 62 |
would have left a different structure in place when he departed. |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
Again for the record I do not agree 100% with Daniels vision. He did |
| 65 |
want a foundation with more power/control over the distro. I do not |
| 66 |
agree with that. I see a foundation playing at best an advisory |
| 67 |
role/liaison. But not a boss, over the council power wise, or anything |
| 68 |
of the sort. |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
-- |
| 71 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |
| 72 |
amd64/Java/Trustees |
| 73 |
Gentoo Foundation |
Archives