1 |
First off this is way OT now. This thread is on a particular section of |
2 |
the bylaws. We the trustees are trying to review and revise. |
3 |
|
4 |
On Fri, 2008-05-23 at 02:36 +0200, Luca Barbato wrote: |
5 |
> |
6 |
> > Representing the community was the foundations intention, but over time. |
7 |
> > As the foundation was neglected, it seems that was never realized. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> I was around when the foundation got there and even before... |
10 |
|
11 |
Then as a foundation member. You are partly responsible for it's failure |
12 |
year after year. Ever since it was formed. No reporting beyond 2005, |
13 |
ending with revocation in 2007. |
14 |
|
15 |
> >>> Some of our longest contributing members to Gentoo Java, aren't devs, |
16 |
> >>> nor will they ever be. They don't want to be. Some even have their own |
17 |
> >>> overlays. So guess they should not have any say or input. |
18 |
> >> You just told me that their input has been treasured by the java team, |
19 |
> > |
20 |
> > Does it mean it was passed on to the council? |
21 |
> |
22 |
> Was it needed? Anything prevented anybody to pass it on? |
23 |
|
24 |
Not sure. You would have to ask the community members not me. As I do |
25 |
not represent or speak for them as a developer. |
26 |
|
27 |
> > Does it mean that if they want me to do something I do? |
28 |
> |
29 |
> No and that is wonderful. You are free to waste your time in any way you |
30 |
> like, as long you don't damage the others. The subtle beauty of freedom. |
31 |
|
32 |
So who represents them? Who represents the community? |
33 |
|
34 |
> > Does it mean I represent them and their will? |
35 |
> |
36 |
> In which aspect? Their will about gentoo and java? If you value and |
37 |
> treasure their input as you told me, I think they could consider that |
38 |
> you are pretty much doing that. |
39 |
|
40 |
It's not about that. They might be working on something that doesn't |
41 |
interest me. |
42 |
|
43 |
> Not that you aren't threating of adding a large deal of bureaucracy |
44 |
> right now, is it? |
45 |
|
46 |
Look there is a need for organization. The initial wording of the |
47 |
foundation charter, straight up says the foundation is a result of |
48 |
increased size. |
49 |
|
50 |
I am not a fan of bureaucracy, but I am a fan of structure and |
51 |
organization. Without you get chaos, and we have that on so many fronts. |
52 |
|
53 |
> (c.f the twin email in which you take the letter of a |
54 |
> glep as a weapon against me apparently) |
55 |
|
56 |
Um, did you not see all the emails where I was fighting GLEP 39? You |
57 |
mentioned the word rules. Which the council is at the top of all. Yet |
58 |
the council doesn't seem to want to enforce their own rules against |
59 |
themselves. Which all developers, the community, trustees, etc are |
60 |
powerless to do anything about. |
61 |
|
62 |
I am not using it against you. But as a council member. You have an |
63 |
elected duty to serve (which I have a duty as well to serve). That you |
64 |
are not doing now. Any time spent commenting here. Could go to starting |
65 |
an election. Or following rules and procedures specific to the council. |
66 |
|
67 |
Or even better, comment on the GLEP 39 issue. Which I do not believe a |
68 |
single council member has commented on in public. No comments, and no |
69 |
action toward a council election. |
70 |
|
71 |
> People who tried to move from inc. to a nfp org. |
72 |
|
73 |
It is a NPO organization, 501c6. Inc has nothing to do with the type of |
74 |
entity. No more than anything else in the name. Incorporation does not |
75 |
imply profit. |
76 |
|
77 |
> I think everybody could dig the discussion about why 501c6 and not |
78 |
> 501c3, I couldn't care less since I'm European and by that time I wasn't |
79 |
> that interested on the issue. |
80 |
|
81 |
What discussion? Daniel went to his attorney, whom we just retained for |
82 |
the reinstatement. He enacted Daniels will, and what Daniel paid him |
83 |
for. There might have been side discussions, but I am not sure that had |
84 |
anything to do with Daniels choice over 501c6 over c3. Only Daniel or |
85 |
Mr. Chew if he can, could comment about that. |
86 |
|
87 |
Based on how it seemed Daniel operated in the past. I don't think he |
88 |
asked anyone's permission when he resigned and created the foundation. |
89 |
Thus I would find it surprising for him to poll, and act on majority wrt |
90 |
to the type of foundation he was to create. |
91 |
|
92 |
> > Never has anyone ever legally been able to donate to and write off as a |
93 |
> > charitable donation. Any amount to the Gentoo Foundation, ever. It's not |
94 |
> > that type of legal entity. |
95 |
> |
96 |
> I know, it was supposed to be something else from start. |
97 |
|
98 |
In how it functions, and it's mission. Not the type of legal entity it |
99 |
is. |
100 |
|
101 |
-- |
102 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |
103 |
amd64/Java/Trustees |
104 |
Gentoo Foundation |