1 |
On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 6:24 AM, Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@g.o> |
2 |
wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> Gentoo has been known to be a two headed entity for a while. While the |
5 |
> fact is that only one of the heads has legal standing to be called |
6 |
> Gentoo, the other head has been doing most of the technical work. |
7 |
> Unfortunately having two heads means that there can be fighting between |
8 |
> them. In order to finally put the matter to some rest I seek to define |
9 |
> Gentoo's org structure. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> Currently, legally, it only consists of the following: |
12 |
> 1. foundation members |
13 |
> 2. trustees |
14 |
> 3. officers (don't have to be foundation members or trustees) |
15 |
> |
16 |
> I wish to extend that to the following. |
17 |
> 1. foundation members |
18 |
> 2. trustees |
19 |
> 3. officers (don't have to be foundation members or trustees) |
20 |
> 3.1 infra members (or at least the lead) |
21 |
> 3.2 comrel members (or at least the lead) |
22 |
> 3.3 council members |
23 |
> |
24 |
|
25 |
People in 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 are already Gentoo developers and yet some |
26 |
developers choose not to associate with the Foundation. |
27 |
|
28 |
If I was a council member, could I continue to be a council member and not |
29 |
be a member of the Foundation? If not, it could appear like this is an |
30 |
exclusionary measure (e.g. in order to be a council member you must also be |
31 |
willing to be a Foundation member.) If Foundation membership is optional, |
32 |
it looks similar to the status quo (some of comrel / Council / etc are |
33 |
Foundation members, some are not.) |
34 |
|
35 |
|
36 |
> |
37 |
> Infrastructure has a clearly defined role in Gentoo. Namely that of |
38 |
> managing foundation infrastructure resources. Bringing those members |
39 |
> under the foundation's umbrella formalizes this. Infra has previously |
40 |
> been fairly nebulous as to who directs them (having been directed by |
41 |
> council, trustees and comrel). |
42 |
> |
43 |
|
44 |
The short answer is Infra is directed by Council for project matters and |
45 |
Trustees for legal / money matters. |
46 |
I've been working on drawing up this policy explicitly in recent times. |
47 |
|
48 |
|
49 |
> |
50 |
> Comrel has the clear analog of being the HR (human relations). HR |
51 |
> is three to protect the business from human related infighting. Comrel |
52 |
> was previously under the direction of the council, primarily for |
53 |
> historical reasons (the foundation was not well staffed or run until |
54 |
> recently). I thank the council for managing this. |
55 |
> |
56 |
> Council is supposed to be the technical leadership within Gentoo, over |
57 |
> the last decade or so this responsibility has ballooned to encompass |
58 |
> things out side this scope. This seeks to clearly define the powers of |
59 |
> the council to that of technical leadership. |
60 |
> |
61 |
> |
62 |
> One of the drawbacks of this is that being an officer means being an |
63 |
> 'organ' of the business, meaning that some of the current members may |
64 |
> have conflicts with their current job. To this I ask 'Is what you are |
65 |
> doing now not vital? If it is doesn't that make you an organ (even if |
66 |
> not explicitly stated as such)?' |
67 |
> |
68 |
> One of the good things about this (other than clearly defining roles and |
69 |
> boundaries) is that it allows council members to server as Trustees. |
70 |
> This would require a bylaw change, but has been something often |
71 |
> complained about. |
72 |
> |
73 |
|
74 |
The above is a bit vague to me. My reading is: |
75 |
|
76 |
We continue to have a Foundation, with members (now expanded in this |
77 |
proposal), the board still meets monthy and makes decisions, the board is |
78 |
elected by the members every yeah. The board directs Infra and Comrel? The |
79 |
board does not direct the council? |
80 |
|
81 |
Is that the summary? |
82 |
|
83 |
-A |
84 |
|
85 |
|
86 |
> |
87 |
> -- |
88 |
> Matthew Thode (prometheanfire) |
89 |
> |