On Sat, 2008-05-24 at 21:45 -0700, Alec Warner wrote:
>
> I don't think his 'dream' of the foundation is necessarily relevant.
Who created the foundation?
> What I think solar is trying to say is that there are a number of
> foundation members who view the foundation as just an IP holder. It
> exists because in 'meatspace' we are required to have a legal entity
> to hold shared IP.
I understand that point of view. But even in that limited scope the
foundation was being neglected. Much less any other areas.
> Not everyone wants to have tons of cash, corporate sponsors, large
> conferences, etc.
Understandable, and anything like being discussed would likely be put to
a member vote. Likely have to be voted on else where as well, like by
developers separate of the foundation members. Depending on what is
being voted on.
> I think you will find that a number of folks would disagree with
> putting anything like that in the bylaws because the foundation is not
> intended to have anything to do with development at large. It is
> intended as a IP holding entity; nothing else.
So why not spell out in the document that declares how the foundation
operates, that the board and officers have nothing to do with
development. This would give the council legal power as well over
technical aspects. Not just the informal power it has now.
Which if you notice in proposed bylaws. I posted a section the other day
that sort implies the foundation can start and have full control over
projects. Pretty interesting and I would like to see removed.
If we are spelling out aspects of the foundation, why not include the
council. Not all things, but power scope, meeting time frame,
requirements, election procedures etc.
One legal document for it all. Instead of the various GLEPs, docs on our
elections, etc.
> I'm not saying that view is right or wrong and I wholly expect changes
> anyway; just be aware that a number of developers see things that way
> and that is why they are so concerned by all the 'businessy' stuff;
> since the foundation was not created to do those things (hence a
> second corp).
The view of those that were supposed to oversee the foundation that
another created with a different vision. I do respect their view, but
again. They did not create the foundation. Had the foundation been
maintained even as they envision. I might feel different.
But regardless of Daniel's vision. He is/was 100% correct on one thing.
Since it's inception the foundation has largely been a failure. There is
no reporting since 05, with the culmination of the revocation in 07. So
1 out of 3.5 or so years. Not much of a track record, even with limited
scope. As for interest, well 13 down to 5, and no election in 07.
Had Daniel envisioned what would become of the foundation. He likely
would have left a different structure in place when he departed.
Again for the record I do not agree 100% with Daniels vision. He did
want a foundation with more power/control over the distro. I do not
agree with that. I see a foundation playing at best an advisory
role/liaison. But not a boss, over the council power wise, or anything
of the sort.
--
William L. Thomson Jr.
amd64/Java/Trustees
Gentoo Foundation
|
