Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 08/02/2011 11:21 PM, Roy Bamford wrote:
> On 2011.08.02 22:50, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> On 08/02/2011 07:24 PM, Roy Bamford wrote:
>>> Team,
>>>
>>> The trustees are legally accountable and responsible for the
>>> operation of the Gentoo Foundation Inc.  Some things in the
>>> bylaws are there to comply with statutes.
>>>
>>> The Gentoo council has no legal standing whatsoever, which I
>>> have already said (at FOSEDEM) makes me a little nervous as a
>>> trustee, since the council makes decisions on behalf of Gentoo
>>> that the Foundation would be held both accountable and
>>> responsible for.
>> There
>>> have been no issues with that, yet.
>>
>> The council is supposed to discuss and decides on technical or
>> project wise issues. How can a technical decision violate laws etc?
>> I can't think on top of my head an issue that would expose
>> Foundation. Can you please provide an example?
> Any decision that has copyright, licence, or patent implications
> could expose the Foundation. Although, I do agree with Rich0 that the
> two bodies have worked well together, so it has not been an issue.
>
>>
>>>
>>> Maybe its time to reorganise Gentoo along standard corporate
>>> lines again, as it was before drobbins left. If we go in that
>>> direction, the council becomes a technical committee that is part
>>> of the Foundation. GLEP39 is no longer needed and the Foundation
>>> bylaws
>> are
>>> amended to reflect the new structure.
>>
>> If we go in that direction, I see no point in having the
>> Foundation and the Council as two separate entities. In this case
>> it would make much more sense to merge them.
>
> Division of responsibilities is important, in the business world, its
>  essential, and the Foundation is first and foremost a business, even
>  if its directors and officers are not paid. The Foundation does not
>  get any special treatment from the state of New Mexico, nor the IRS
> and friends.
The Council and the Foundation already have different responsibilities.

>
> It would be unethical if the council could vote funds for a council
> devised project. Likewise, trustees need business administration
> skills rather than technical skills and should not determine the
> technical direction of Gentoo.
Agreed. But this is the kind of structure we have at the moment isn't it?
>
> I'm suggesting that the informal interdependencies that are present
> between the council and the foundation be formalised along the lines
> of a standard corporation.

This is the part that I don't understand. Could you please explain that
and/or provide a layout of the new organizational structure that you
propose?
>
>> I don't quite like the idea though.
> Would you care to expand on that?
>
Mainly because I fail to understand the changes you propose and because
I am quite happy with the way things are at the moment.

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)

iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJOOHwrAAoJEPqDWhW0r/LCc6gQAMQfu5v5NM8s4Wc6Uo7q8UYL
QTNWtIElqLVwnC6M3EsCttrJc9Y4tHqfvWzfyUIitYX6xToW1hPe0VPCQ/ODjNli
iqsKC+pjvOPmgJ9jnTL4Fkx2PokjGc3q6Ys4GqxXNYbjOTCBJnBPWwcP4OJRnDXR
szPv3Fiapibee+piNn9BhCQcqzr2WAQ9INI4ZKDjCxmVs47oAEyRip0s4RUQ8zvN
3M/7tDQbrldySom3uR0/0A5x0CF3OuW+090x3H3S6qL3S6QG+CkNm0mWRkCuZoMD
xSfvH2jQ2woIr+D4B+7OQ0o4oaopqxCDFqsuka7qcAUjnDrFSoEob/Z8+JbtXK/+
dQjki9g2OxJfpV+v8DTI42uAJQJ/7Lc8UlLURy8OIFeZIvzLITH2uBt4ZBoZfjEP
zXQ4V7DiroX0gzDeRM3Bazd6fMLjPWukbf57LTGpZ79IqLlOYlts9I7+j1sRduna
/WOGEJM73yugW2fGbGbtK1pYNHzpC6x7KmyPqIY12pja4jP/l+LAYfRB9CjCQX0d
YDVzifFMiQ+16C+OMrg2IubSue4g7QydqkpnarAe8GNnftkZMVsYtPsBLSoV0HM3
4cl/hD56e3zBrJMT3A2C54mBD8dLdxPw2+mB8w1oPJVggwKhSnyFajKSoDqJQbGn
rOCLZ0YxChfHdH6BZlKU
=y+GD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----