1 |
On 13/11/16 15:05, Rich Freeman wrote: |
2 |
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 9:53 AM, M. J. Everitt <m.j.everitt@×××.org> wrote: |
3 |
>> Foundation |
4 |
>> ======= |
5 |
>> Legal entity |
6 |
>> Deals with finance |
7 |
>> Deals with compliance |
8 |
>> Provides Infra |
9 |
>> Provides/oversees Staff |
10 |
>> |
11 |
>> Council |
12 |
>> ===== |
13 |
>> Fulfils aim of Linux Distribution |
14 |
>> Oversees projects |
15 |
>> Innovates and develops |
16 |
>> |
17 |
>> Both are Foundation and Council are elected bodies from the staff |
18 |
>> electorate. |
19 |
>> |
20 |
>> Anyone with any objections to this structure? |
21 |
>> |
22 |
> IMO it would make more sense to limit the Foundation to things that |
23 |
> require a legal entity to provide, such as finance, IP, etc. I don't |
24 |
> think it should be running Infra or administering staff. And I'm not |
25 |
> entirely convinced that having an independent Foundation is even the |
26 |
> best way of dealing with financial issues as most other distros seem |
27 |
> to be moving away from this (if they're not run by a big corporation |
28 |
> already). If we joined SPI like Debian/Arch/Freedesktop/etc then we |
29 |
> wouldn't need to have anybody dealing with most of the details |
30 |
> finance/compliance/etc, we would just need to tell them when we need |
31 |
> bills paid and so on. That could be a special project but with a lot |
32 |
> less manpower required than what the Trustees currently have to deal |
33 |
> with. |
34 |
No .. I feel this separates the Council to deal with the day-to-day |
35 |
running of the distro, and the Foundation that are legally and |
36 |
financially responsible. I think the roles are distinct and different, |
37 |
and since both can be accused of being "asleep at the wheel" I think |
38 |
each should be minimally accountable to the other. |
39 |
|
40 |
It also addresses your concerns that the key aims of Gentoo are, in your |
41 |
words: |
42 |
|
43 |
"We're here to create a Linux distribution." |
44 |
|
45 |
and not to run servers, handle HR and do finances, etc. |
46 |
> I'd also comment that innovation and development is the responsibility |
47 |
> of all of our contributors. I don't think that the role of a Council |
48 |
> member should be seen as some kind of prize for being the most |
49 |
> innovative/etc. Sure, they should have the general respect of the |
50 |
> community, but it is a role like any other with its own set of |
51 |
> necessary skills/etc. |
52 |
The problem with council as it stands .. is its a purely reactionary |
53 |
body. There is a sleepy subculture that 'everything is fine' and |
54 |
"nothing needs to be done" which is not really helpful for an innovating |
55 |
and active distribution. Imho. |
56 |
> Ultimately though I think it is helpful to have one group of people |
57 |
> who cast votes and decide what we ought to be doing, and one set of |
58 |
> representatives elected by this group of voters, so that we don't have |
59 |
> debates between multiple governance bodies that all believe they have |
60 |
> a mandate. |
61 |
> |
62 |
Broadly agreed with the first element, but don't agree that it leads |
63 |
necessarily to the latter situation. |