1 |
On Mon, 2004-04-12 at 18:39, Daniel Robbins wrote: |
2 |
> Hi guys, |
3 |
> |
4 |
> Here is a very short summary of the NFP progress so far: |
5 |
> |
6 |
> 1) I have committed to get something going by the end of this month (April.) |
7 |
> This would be either an establishment of an NFP, or some kind of action plan |
8 |
> to set up multiple entities like a NFP with one or more cooperatives to |
9 |
> provide funding. |
10 |
|
11 |
Letting the people that care about and feel they would be affected by |
12 |
such changes is as important to me as the final outcome. |
13 |
|
14 |
> 2) The main issue of concern for me is (obviously) not getting the NFP set |
15 |
> up as soon as humanly possible but making sure that whatever is really best |
16 |
> for the Gentoo community, as it is very hard to change things once things |
17 |
> have been established. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> This has been very difficult because I have been trying to meet many |
20 |
> conflicting and contradictory expectations of users and developers: |
21 |
> |
22 |
> A) Expectation: Gentoo will be competitive against Microsoft |
23 |
> Reality: Microsoft spends $6.8 Billion USD on R&D every year. |
24 |
... |
25 |
re: comment in meeting about how users become the testbed for unstable |
26 |
linux software: so are Microsoft users, but linux users aren't required |
27 |
to pay to be tested on. |
28 |
|
29 |
> B) Expectation: I want to be able to work on Gentoo full-time. |
30 |
> Reality: As time goes on, Linux and free software is getting |
31 |
> supported more |
32 |
... |
33 |
> Good question. These big companies will want some return on their |
34 |
> dollar, so they |
35 |
> will expect you to do what *they* want and not what you want. |
36 |
... |
37 |
This is precisely why i feel uneasy about a largely money-backed |
38 |
operation being in control of gentoo. Even if current or former gentoo |
39 |
people end up running it for the first year. |
40 |
... |
41 |
> C) Expectation: Gentoo should be representative of user needs. |
42 |
> Reality: Having an open participatory model makes it easier for |
43 |
> external entities (such as the dreaded Microsoft) to co-opt (ie take over) the entity. |
44 |
... |
45 |
As opposed to one that can be bought into? The current "open |
46 |
participatory" model involves people participating and giving back to |
47 |
the community to even get in. Participation may be open but it requires |
48 |
a little more than just a checkbook. |
49 |
|
50 |
> D) Expectation: Gentoo should be set up to protect against co-option. |
51 |
> Reality: This requires a closed and non-participatory |
52 |
... |
53 |
I've worked as a federal contractor, and in a small office run out of a |
54 |
glorified condo out in the woods, and many places inbetween. The common |
55 |
thread was that when people felt things were being run fairly and |
56 |
equitably, they were much more willing to put in the overtime and not |
57 |
complain about feeling slighted. One day, that little company in the |
58 |
woods got acquired by a venture-capital-backed startup headed up by |
59 |
former vice presidents of various banks and mortgage companies. After |
60 |
the takeover, people got pathetic 2% raises and were told straight up |
61 |
that it'd be the last raise for another year. So, we no longer had much |
62 |
of a say in the organization, while we kept hearing about all the money |
63 |
they were spending on the marble fountains for the out-of-state |
64 |
corporate offices we'd never see or use. |
65 |
... |
66 |
> E) Expectation: We should have 501(c)(3) status |
67 |
> Reality: I have learned that 501(c)(3) status is for charities. |
68 |
... |
69 |
> 3) Several major universities are in negotiation about setting up some kind |
70 |
> of entity to fund Gentoo development, and I am participating in some of |
71 |
> these discussions. |
72 |
.......... |
73 |
Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of the coop, I like seeing a way to |
74 |
help push along various open-source projects, even more so if Gentoo was |
75 |
to be their flagship platform - the one that gets the most, or first |
76 |
shot at benefits from any development or promotions that come from |
77 |
having an actual budget. |
78 |
|
79 |
Something I've always respected about open source projects is that |
80 |
contributions are mostly merit-based. If someone wants to contribute, |
81 |
and they have good code, they are in. Sure, its somewhat of a utopian |
82 |
view, as personality conflicts can get in the way. But truly open |
83 |
projects have been this way for quite some time. When I first started |
84 |
contributing fractal algorithms and printer drivers to fractint, and |
85 |
even introduced a publisher to the whole concept (the book "Fractal |
86 |
Creations" and a few others were the result of this). By the way, I was |
87 |
14 when I did this. I could not have bought my way into an organization |
88 |
then, and was discriminated right out of any real office, but online it |
89 |
didn't matter. |
90 |
|
91 |
My vote for gentoo as a distribution is to keep it pure. I have a vested |
92 |
interest in keeping it running as well as it possibly can, because I use |
93 |
it. Its my desktop, its my server, its my laptop. We already are |
94 |
responsive to users, from bugzilla and other sources. There are people |
95 |
out there making sure it runs well. Its not because they bought in to a |
96 |
coop, its because they already care about the product. |
97 |
|
98 |
If you can get corporations and universities to chip in to a fund that |
99 |
can help get better drivers built, or even show hardware manufacturers |
100 |
that there is a presence out there aside from just ibm that wants linux |
101 |
to succeed, and can better coax vendors to release open drivers for |
102 |
(video, network, firewire, etc) hardware, or allow interested developers |
103 |
to do so without resorting to trying to reverse-engineer their gear, |
104 |
then that would be great too. But since not all that money will be going |
105 |
directly to gentoo, I feel that there would be fewer concerns about how |
106 |
a money-based organization, even if its called a coop, would have |
107 |
somewhat of a conflict of interest with gentoo itself. |
108 |
|
109 |
If gentoo was declared a NFP, even though it might be more restrictive, |
110 |
it sounds to me like that would be just the thing to help keep gentoo |
111 |
pure by forcing the books to stay clean, and still giving universities a |
112 |
charitable way to write off equipment and bandwidth which is helping us |
113 |
and our users. And if they can afford to chip in to the organization |
114 |
that funds development to further the growth and stability of linux |
115 |
(including gentoo), then that is a great thing too. Although those two |
116 |
things have a symbiotic relationship and benefit from each other, they |
117 |
do not have identical goals and motivations, and for that reason I feel |
118 |
they should be separate entities. It is important to have a clear focus. |
119 |
Being pulled in two directions at once is likely to cause a rift. |
120 |
|
121 |
... |
122 |
> You will need to choose between an "open, participatory" (and co-optable) |
123 |
> and a "closed, non-co-optable" (and non-representative/unfair) governing |
124 |
> model. So let me know which you prefer and I'll get it set up. The other |
125 |
> alternative is to try to find some kind of compromise, where the government |
126 |
> for the not-for-profit isn't too fair or open, but is more bureaucratic and |
127 |
> harder to co-opt. Let me know which one appeals to you. |
128 |
> |
129 |
> Sincerely, |
130 |
> |
131 |
> Daniel |
132 |
> -- |
133 |
> gentoo-nfp@g.o mailing list |
134 |
-- |
135 |
Scott W Taylor <swtaylor@g.o> |
136 |
|
137 |
|
138 |
-- |
139 |
gentoo-nfp@g.o mailing list |