On Fri, 2004-04-16 at 17:02, Pieter Van den Abeele wrote:
> Can those commitments be categorized as for profit?
> Do we have to trust the people you have made commitments to, and which
> are going to be selected by gentoos sole FP entity (because that is the
> only thing you have been doing lately)?
> I wouldn't want to be part of that NFP board, because people could say
> that I'm one of guys you made a secret commitment with. You are already
> saying that you made commitments with certain managers, I don't think
> it was smart for such a manager to engage in such a commitment, and
> especially not to insist on it being put into practice the way you are
> currently trying to implement the commitment. I would even go as far to
> claim that such a manager (who insists on implementing the commitment)
> is putting the establishment of a NFP entity at risk.
> As long as those commitments cannot be categorized as for profit, I
> would have no objection for such a gentoo member (who engaged in a
> commitment) to become part of the initial NFP board, a board whose
> responsibility would be, amongst others, to determine a policy on what
> FP entities are allowed to use the Gentoo trademarks. You have to
> realize that the very fact that I need to ask a FP entity (again,
> because that's the only thing you have been doing lately) this
> question, probably renders the situation more complicated than it
> needed to be, unfortunately.
Listen, I know I haven't exactly been the model of trust around Gentoo
lately. However, the note that Daniel sent to (-managers?) where he
said he and I have worked our misunderstandings out -- that's very true,
we have. It's a wonder what a little perception can lead to, when it
does not correspond to fact.
I know that I'd hurt Daniel with my accusations, as well. I do wish to
reiterate that Daniel *does* have the best intentions for Gentoo.
Sometimes, I know it doesn't look like he does, but that again is a
matter of perception.
Before we let the cabal-paranoia get ahead of us -- the commitment to
managers was made last year when the managers group was created
initially. It is probably somewhere in your mail archives (-managers
I'm guessing). Daniel stated then (and in private to me) that the board
of the then future NFP would consist of the managers in place at that
time. Since then, newer managers have come into the picture -- I'm not
clear how they will figure into the board. I do also recall that Daniel
had expressed a desire for some of the more senior (time-wise) devs to
be on the board, including aron and grant. So the commitment wasn't
made behind any backs, it was actually made to the parties involved
(you, me, kurt, joshua, paul, aron, grant, and I'm sure I'm missing a
couple of names).
Honestly, please give Daniel a chance at this without unduly suspecting
him. He's been the brunt of a lot of attacks lately, and that can't be
easy. He has definitely shown a commitment to making the NFP happen --
that's a great thing. So let's help him make it happen :)
Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x3458780E
Key fingerprint = 23A9 7CB5 9BBB 4F8D 549B 6593 EDA2 65D8 3458 780E