On Thu, 2011-03-31 at 14:17 +0000, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> The bylaws approved in 2008 were subject to a public discussion in the
> mailing list. Even though I wasn't a trustee and don't have any "inside
> information" about the discussion within the team, I did talk about them
> with other trustees. Whether William "lead" that discussion within
> Trustees is something only the other members can answer,
You can look in the archives to see who made every post on each section
of the bylaws.
> but even though
> he was very vocal in the public, we was not the only Trustee involved on
> the discussion and the approved bylaws are not what he initially pushed
I resigned right before there was a vote on the bylaws. There were no
changes between when I resigned and the vote.
> Some members of the community, me included, did participate in the
> discussion and expressed their views about the bylaws.
> A "legal" system may take into account the "desire" or "purpose" of a
> legislator when a particular piece of legislation was approved, but first
> and foremost it tries to pursue the compliance with the approved text
> (written text). Furthermore, when taking into account the "desire" or
> "purpose" of the legislator, it will look at the global discussion and the
> several alternatives submitted for discussion, it won't rely simply in the
> will or word of one of the legislators.
The discussions are in the archives for anyone to re-read.
> So you may disagree with the interpretation of the bylaws of the current
> trustees, you may even argue that it goes against what you were trying to
> do, but that doesn't mean they've necessarily diverged from the global
> intent at the time the bylaws were approved. Nor does it mean you
> (individual, former trustee) have any special authority to "judge" the
Again I know what I had written, and why. You can question that all you
like, but I was making lots of changes. Other trustees did participate,
but I was taking lead and made most efforts with regard to bylaws
authoring and review. Which is very clear in the archives of this
> About having 5 trustees, that's a number that members seem comfortable
> with and that no one up until now has contested (trustes and foundation
I am a foundation member, and I am contesting it. Not to mention former
trustee, who helped to author the current bylaws.
> About having more, I still recall us having 13 members was seen on 2007 /
> 2008 as one of the reasons things got where they did back then.
Do you recall how many there were when you ran the election back in
2008? There was maybe 2-3 active. Which I can only recall Grant Goodyear
and Chris Gianelloni. I have no idea where you are getting the 13 number
from in 2007. That simply is not accurate, do you have anything to
support that? When was the last election prior to 2008?
> So, even
> though having more members could, in theory, help, we should be careful to
> ensure that we don't get again to a point where no one knows what's going
> on or thinks another member is working on an issue, when no one is.
There was specific intention when the foundation was created when
setting the number of trustees. Which was not modified when the current
bylaws were drafted, nor approved by a vote.
> Back in 2007 / 2008 you did some noise that lead to increased attention to
> the Foundation and that lead the Board of Trustees to finally call for an
The board had no choice, time for elections was past due. I also found
election officials, which I guess you forgot that aspect as well. Which
you should well know having been on of the officials. I was the one who
got you involved in that.
Subject: Election Officials Update
That was after you accepted a call for help on the matter
> However, you had no role whatsoever in the running of the election and
> in making sure members could vote, tallying the votes and publishing
> the results.
I love how you forgot that I got you involved in that. I went around and
found election officials, as show in previous links. Which I had to
inquire if that was a conflict of interest later since I was running in
the election. Not sure if I still have that email.
> To clear any doubts that your comments about later elections may have
> cast, for those that didn't or don't follow the mailing lists, the reason
> we didn't have a "voting" for the 2010 election was that the number of
> candidates was the same as the number of open seats.
Which should basically be the case now. Till the maximum number of
trustees is reached, there likely should be no elections. That would
have been true back in 2008. However it was best given the turmoil for
members to choose trustees via a vote. Rather than just accept any
volunteer for the role.
> I, as a foundation member, am very happy with the job done by the current
What have they done? Specifically? Is financial accounting not part of
the mission of the foundation? Do you accept the job they have done with
that? Having large sums of money unaccounted for, discrepancies in
accounting, and mandated filings not being done?
Really its enough patting on the back. They have not done anything
substantial, and that is a problem. I am not saying I dislike them or do
not appreciate any efforts. Just the necessary and mandated financial
matters have not been addressed. Which is half of the mission behind the
foundation, legal and financial.
> I don't consider everything is perfect, but by paying attention
> to the meetings logs and seeing trustees actions, I'm convinced they are
> very much concerned and dedicated to their roles. Could things be better?
> Sure, but such is life, even more on a volunteer organization.
What actions? Again they have neglected one of the most important
aspects of their duties and role. There is no getting around that, its
unacceptable. This is OTHER peoples money!
> As a subscriber to this ml I have no doubt about your opinion on the
> current state of affairs or the current trustees. Any doubt was cleared
> many emails ago.
Its not an opinion, its fact. Things are not getting done, and you
cannot claim that to be my opinion. No evidence or anything has been
produced to show that they are doing their job. Even if they made
miracles happen on the legal side, the ball has been dropped on the
> Curiously, you were the one trying to promote a change in the bylaws so
> that the Foundation could pay to developers. It took much resistance from
> the rest of the community for you to drop that idea.
Please provide a link to such a claim and accusation, which is factually
incorrect. You might be referring to this post, which very few commented
Subject: What could the Gentoo Foundation do with money?
I went out of my way to remove provisions in the bylaws that allowed
trustees to pay themselves. I did that as a trustee, when I could have
paid myself. I believe that was discussed internally amongst trustees. I
will provide some evidence, if I still have those emails.
Also many in the community are interested in having paid development or
things of that nature in Gentoo. Including members of the current board.
How that comes about is up to others.
To be 100% clear, at no time then or now was I personally ever seeking
to get paid. What is so wrong about trying to help others get paid for
their efforts? Is that not the idea behind GSoC? What is the difference
between using Google's money or the money donated to Gentoo? Not to
mention in this economy, I am sure no developer could use extra funds or
money from helping to further Gentoo.
Now if you understood what I was talking about then, and even now. Only
core positions would be paid. Things that are crucial to Gentoo, and top
level positions. The avg developer would not be paid. Please if your
going to comment on such things. Make sure you are fully aware of the
situation and intentions, and/or provide links or references to support
William L. Thomson Jr.