1 |
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oR8JUEJG7KriCdpueChWreR8Qe47GhiVvibXxyi2TiI/edit?usp=sharing |
2 |
|
3 |
Formally have Foundation oversee top level projects |
4 |
|
5 |
When the Foundation and subsequently the council were set up, both |
6 |
bodies had common members despite their declared different purposes. |
7 |
|
8 |
Over the years the common members have vanished. Indeed, since 2008, |
9 |
the Foundation bylaws have forbidden a single individual to serve on |
10 |
council and as a trustee concurrently. Thus the split in |
11 |
responsibilities identified when the foundation was created became more |
12 |
absolute. |
13 |
|
14 |
This split is suboptimal for Gentoo (all of it). There is a reason why |
15 |
normal corporations are structured the way they are and Gentoo has not |
16 |
been like that since 2004. |
17 |
|
18 |
This proposal sets out a plan to revert to the normal corporate |
19 |
structure that Gentoo enjoyed before the Foundation and Council were |
20 |
created. |
21 |
|
22 |
Right now this is a general plan for discussion, if we wish to go this |
23 |
way details need to be hammered out. |
24 |
|
25 |
Issues with the status quo: |
26 |
|
27 |
Foundation/Trustees exist to take away the burden of running Gentoo |
28 |
financially, infrastructure and legally. There is some crossover with |
29 |
projects run under the Council though. PR, Recruitment, Comrel and |
30 |
Infrastructure exist under the Council, not Foundation. |
31 |
|
32 |
Each of those have implications for Legal reasons (mainly due to how |
33 |
their actions may expose Gentoo to legal conflict) and monetary reasons |
34 |
(Infrastructure particularly). |
35 |
|
36 |
What it means to ‘be’ Gentoo. There’s the legal definition, meaning |
37 |
only the Foundation members ‘are’ Gentoo (non-EU, ‘Gentoo eV’ exists |
38 |
there). There is also the reality of the developers actually being |
39 |
Gentoo, as they do the work. Problems occur when the membership of one |
40 |
does something the other doesn’t like or thinks needs to stop (for |
41 |
example, the Foundation forcibly removing all non-GPL software from the |
42 |
tree would probably not go over well). |
43 |
|
44 |
Split in the voting pool. Currently the people voting for one body can |
45 |
vote for something that’s against the views of the people in the other |
46 |
body. This can cause conflict. |
47 |
|
48 |
Possible Solution: |
49 |
|
50 |
Voting body: |
51 |
|
52 |
In order to solve this Gentoo needs to have a combined electorate, |
53 |
meaning those that would vote for Council would also vote for Trustees |
54 |
and visa-versa. This would ensure that everyone’s needs are represented. |
55 |
|
56 |
The combined voting body would be able to opt out of voting, however, |
57 |
opting out of voting means opting out of voting globally. The reasoning |
58 |
behind this is so that you can’t opt out of voting for one body but not |
59 |
the other, as doing so would cause a split in the voting pool. |
60 |
|
61 |
Bodies being voted for: |
62 |
|
63 |
We should have a single overarching governing body, let’s call it ‘The |
64 |
Board’. This is so that conflicts between Council and Trustees (as they |
65 |
exist now) would have a straightforward resolution. |
66 |
|
67 |
This new ‘Board’ would be able to use the existing project metastructure |
68 |
to delegate roles to various groups (Comrel, Infra, etc would still |
69 |
exist, but under this new Board). Technical leadership would continue |
70 |
as a sub-project of this board. |
71 |
|
72 |
Sub-projects of the board can be voted for by the same electorate that |
73 |
votes for the board. This does not need to be the case for all |
74 |
sub-projects. |
75 |
|
76 |
It may look something like this: |
77 |
|
78 |
Some of the subprojects are for example and may not reflect reality or |
79 |
be complete, however, the top-level sub-projects should be as is: |
80 |
|
81 |
|
82 |
|
83 |
|--Council--(various projects) |
84 |
| |
85 |
| |--Recruiting |
86 |
Board --+--Comrel--| |
87 |
| |--Something else |
88 |
| |
89 |
|--PR |
90 |
| |--Releng (if recognized) |
91 |
|--Infra--| |
92 |
|--Portage (possibly) |
93 |
|
94 |
Other: |
95 |
|
96 |
The Board’s responsibilities should be limited to running to Gentoo as a |
97 |
global project. This means they’d effectively be trustees. Technical |
98 |
matters should be limited to the council and its associated |
99 |
sub-projects. HR type issues should change from appealing up through |
100 |
the Council (as it is a technical body) to appealing through to the |
101 |
Board. PR and Infra would be directly managed under the Board. |
102 |
|
103 |
This draft of the proposal has nothing to say about the detail of the |
104 |
formation of the ‘Board’, how many members it would have, nor how they |
105 |
will be selected. |
106 |
|
107 |
Suggestions by shentino: |
108 |
|
109 |
Council is elected by (whatever you call people with commit access, used |
110 |
to be deveopers) |
111 |
|
112 |
|
113 |
|
114 |
-- |
115 |
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire) |