On 04/20/2010 02:21 PM, Roy Bamford wrote:
> Thats an interesting concept that I only partly agree with. There is
> one Gentoo. True. The Council heads it up *techncially*. That's
> fairly important. If the council makes a bad decision on behalf of
> Gentoo, its the Foundation that gets sued and ultimately, the trustees
> who go to jail as they have legal responsibility for Gentoo.
I understand what you're getting at.
However, how do you draw the line?
It seems to me that the legal reality is that there is a Gentoo linux
distribution, which the Foundation graciously allows to use the name
"Gentoo", which tends to have overlapping membership, but which is
otherwise fairly independent.
Honestly, in most organizations there would simply be one board of
directors for the whole thing and that is that. This board would be the
final appeal for any matter whether legal, business, technical, human
resources, etc. Now, typically the board appoints people to oversee
these things on a day-to-day basis. If there are multiple boards there
is clear delineation of responsibility and authority, and often a
In any case, my post wasn't really intended to speak to conflicts
between the trustees and the council. I was thinking more about
conflicts between project leads, random developers, etc, and the council.
The trustees and the Gentoo Foundation don't answer to the council.
However, just about all other aspects of the Gentoo distribution do. If
there is not consensus on this then we should make explicit which body
controls what - EVERYTHING in Gentoo should be subordinate to one of
these two bodies, and we should expect the appropriate body to deal with
messes that arise in their domain.
The main reason I wanted to try to make this explicit is that it seems
like I've seen numerous threads where people essentially argue that the
council doesn't have the right to decide this or that. Now, I can see
the legitimacy of this regarding GLEP 39 since the council does need to
answer to the dev body as a whole. However, I don't like the idea that
the council is somehow limited in how it gets involved with day-to-day
distribution matters because it is supposed to be a high and lofty body
that only gets to vote on very specific matters. Sure, as a practical
matter it makes more sense for the council to be an appeals court than a
first-line court, but to go from that to saying that the council can't
take action until after devrel does, or that the devrel lead can't be on
the council, or whatever just doesn't make sense to me. The council
should try to stay above the fray, but if it needs to step in and get
its hands dirty they have that authority. We elect them because we
think they'll have the discretion to do the right thing.
I also am not a big fan of the whole
can't-be-on-council-and-trustees-at-same-time bit either, but that is a
I like what you said about being proactive. I don't see the sole
purpose of the Council to be voting on GLEPs. They are the leaders of
Gentoo, so they should lead. Of course, being a volunteer organization
there will be limits to what they can do in this regard.