1 |
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: |
2 |
> First off this is way OT now. This thread is on a particular section of |
3 |
> the bylaws. We the trustees are trying to review and revise. |
4 |
> |
5 |
> On Fri, 2008-05-23 at 02:36 +0200, Luca Barbato wrote: |
6 |
>>> Representing the community was the foundations intention, but over time. |
7 |
>>> As the foundation was neglected, it seems that was never realized. |
8 |
>> I was around when the foundation got there and even before... |
9 |
> |
10 |
> Then as a foundation member. You are partly responsible for it's failure |
11 |
> year after year. Ever since it was formed. No reporting beyond 2005, |
12 |
> ending with revocation in 2007. |
13 |
|
14 |
I'm European, the foundation is an US entity. I'm supposed to keep my |
15 |
eyes on it to to have this entity, made just collect founds in the us |
16 |
with ease, accountable? Well I'll try my best, starting from this. |
17 |
|
18 |
>>>>> Some of our longest contributing members to Gentoo Java, aren't devs, |
19 |
>>>>> nor will they ever be. They don't want to be. Some even have their own |
20 |
>>>>> overlays. So guess they should not have any say or input. |
21 |
>>>> You just told me that their input has been treasured by the java team, |
22 |
>>> Does it mean it was passed on to the council? |
23 |
>> Was it needed? Anything prevented anybody to pass it on? |
24 |
> |
25 |
> Not sure. You would have to ask the community members not me. As I do |
26 |
> not represent or speak for them as a developer. |
27 |
|
28 |
Since you are the developer listening to them you are supposed to know. |
29 |
|
30 |
>>> Does it mean that if they want me to do something I do? |
31 |
>> No and that is wonderful. You are free to waste your time in any way you |
32 |
>> like, as long you don't damage the others. The subtle beauty of freedom. |
33 |
> |
34 |
> So who represents them? Who represents the community? |
35 |
|
36 |
Themselves since they can voice their concern in a large degree of ways |
37 |
and they don't strictly need anybody to represent them? |
38 |
|
39 |
>>> Does it mean I represent them and their will? |
40 |
>> In which aspect? Their will about gentoo and java? If you value and |
41 |
>> treasure their input as you told me, I think they could consider that |
42 |
>> you are pretty much doing that. |
43 |
> |
44 |
> It's not about that. They might be working on something that doesn't |
45 |
> interest me. |
46 |
|
47 |
Then they can try to get you interested, become developers themselve and |
48 |
put their time where their mouth is. |
49 |
|
50 |
>> Not that you aren't threating of adding a large deal of bureaucracy |
51 |
>> right now, is it? |
52 |
> |
53 |
> Look there is a need for organization. The initial wording of the |
54 |
> foundation charter, straight up says the foundation is a result of |
55 |
> increased size. |
56 |
|
57 |
s/foundation/council |
58 |
|
59 |
> I am not a fan of bureaucracy, but I am a fan of structure and |
60 |
> organization. Without you get chaos, and we have that on so many fronts. |
61 |
|
62 |
We got chaos because some people are too attached to the letter of |
63 |
laws/policy/writtenpaper from my point of view. |
64 |
|
65 |
>> (c.f the twin email in which you take the letter of a |
66 |
>> glep as a weapon against me apparently) |
67 |
> |
68 |
> Um, did you not see all the emails where I was fighting GLEP 39? You |
69 |
> mentioned the word rules. Which the council is at the top of all. Yet |
70 |
> the council doesn't seem to want to enforce their own rules against |
71 |
> themselves. |
72 |
|
73 |
Check the council ml. |
74 |
|
75 |
> Which all developers, the community, trustees, etc are |
76 |
> powerless to do anything about. |
77 |
|
78 |
We do stuff just because we agree on a set of core values, in |
79 |
disagreement we are free to leave to other and more pleasant endeavors. |
80 |
|
81 |
> I am not using it against you. But as a council member. You have an |
82 |
> elected duty to serve (which I have a duty as well to serve). |
83 |
> That you are not doing now. Any time spent commenting here. Could go to starting |
84 |
> an election. Or following rules and procedures specific to the council. |
85 |
> Or even better, comment on the GLEP 39 issue. Which I do not believe a |
86 |
> single council member has commented on in public. No comments, and no |
87 |
> action toward a council election. |
88 |
|
89 |
I followed the discussion on -project but I won't comment there, I |
90 |
already gave my opinion on the -council ml. |
91 |
|
92 |
> It is a NPO organization, 501c6. Inc has nothing to do with the type of |
93 |
> entity. No more than anything else in the name. Incorporation does not |
94 |
> imply profit. |
95 |
|
96 |
I was referring to Gentoo Technologies inc. |
97 |
|
98 |
> Based on how it seemed Daniel operated in the past. I don't think he |
99 |
> asked anyone's permission when he resigned and created the foundation. |
100 |
> Thus I would find it surprising for him to poll, and act on majority wrt |
101 |
> to the type of foundation he was to create. |
102 |
|
103 |
In short, the 6 one was quicker to get, at least that's what I recall. |
104 |
|
105 |
> In how it functions, and it's mission. Not the type of legal entity it |
106 |
> is. |
107 |
|
108 |
c.f. the freebsd nfp |
109 |
|
110 |
lu |
111 |
|
112 |
-- |
113 |
|
114 |
Luca Barbato |
115 |
Gentoo Council Member |
116 |
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC |
117 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero |
118 |
|
119 |
-- |
120 |
gentoo-nfp@l.g.o mailing list |