1 |
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 03:15:21PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: |
2 |
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 3:04 PM Aaron Bauman <bman@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> > |
4 |
> > On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 02:21:51PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: |
5 |
> > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 2:01 PM Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o> wrote: |
6 |
> > > > |
7 |
> > > > Also, we would need to operate two NFPs when at this election |
8 |
> > > > we only secured enough candidates to staff one ... if they are all |
9 |
> > > > ranked above _reopen_nominations in the poll. |
10 |
> > > > |
11 |
> > > |
12 |
> > > ++ |
13 |
> > > |
14 |
> > > This just sounds like twice as many opportunities to get things wrong, |
15 |
> > > and it splits our resources. |
16 |
> > > |
17 |
> > |
18 |
> > You didn't read my previous reply to Roy. It also does not split |
19 |
> > resources. Plain and simple. |
20 |
> |
21 |
> I sent my reply before receiving yours, so obviously I didn't read it. |
22 |
> |
23 |
> Even so, running two non-profits splits our money into two bank |
24 |
> accounts. It is a division of resources no matter what. |
25 |
> |
26 |
|
27 |
All new contributions would be put into a new bank account, yes. The |
28 |
technical divsion of resources won't matter though as this is a |
29 |
systematic turnover of assets. |
30 |
|
31 |
e.g. |
32 |
|
33 |
(1) domains |
34 |
(2) servers |
35 |
(3) IP |
36 |
etc etc etc |
37 |
|
38 |
> > |
39 |
> > > > To follow on your example, there are several competing 2FA |
40 |
> > > > solutions with differing feature sets. While Nitrokey may be |
41 |
> > > > selected for <reasons> the comparative value assesment still |
42 |
> > > > needs to be performed or the trustees would be neglecting their |
43 |
> > > > duty by rubber stamping council decisions. |
44 |
> > > |
45 |
> > > Why would we think that the trustees would do any better a job at this |
46 |
> > > than the Council? Why would the Council want to waste money? There |
47 |
> > > is a limited pool of resources, and if the Council is making decisions |
48 |
> > > like this I'd imagine most developers would vote to select people they |
49 |
> > > trust to make these decisions. |
50 |
> > |
51 |
> > No one said the council will do any better at this than the council. |
52 |
> |
53 |
> Roy suggested that the Trustees would need to assess value, which |
54 |
> implies that the Council won't be doing this. |
55 |
> |
56 |
|
57 |
Yes, the trustees will still handle all legal and financial matters. |
58 |
|
59 |
> > Why would this be a waste of money? |
60 |
> |
61 |
> I never said it would be a waste of money. I asked Roy why he thought |
62 |
> the Council would want to waste money that the Trustees might have to |
63 |
> stop. |
64 |
> |
65 |
> > Your paragraph is full of assumptions and no digestion of what |
66 |
> > I wrote. |
67 |
> |
68 |
> I didn't quote anything you wrote, or reply to anything you wrote. |
69 |
> |
70 |
> > |
71 |
> > > If we went to an umbrella org then there is a good chance that the |
72 |
> > > Council will end up making these kinds of decisions. |
73 |
> > > |
74 |
> > > Besides, why would we want multiple decision-making bodies, where one |
75 |
> > > body can choose to invest in something, and then another body can |
76 |
> > > ensure that all that investment is wasted by denying complementary |
77 |
> > > investment? That could go either way. |
78 |
> > > |
79 |
> > |
80 |
> > It is not multiple decision making bodies. The council is leading and |
81 |
> > the Foundation is providing. The only split is that of legal and |
82 |
> > financial decision making for (hopefully) obvious reasons. |
83 |
> |
84 |
> I wasn't replying to your proposal. I was replying to Roy's criticism |
85 |
> of your proposal. You proposed one decision-making body. Roy replied |
86 |
> and said that we need to stick with two. THAT was what I was |
87 |
> responding to. |
88 |
> |
89 |
|
90 |
My apologies. I suck at mailing lists apparently. |
91 |
|
92 |
> > > > Such bylaws would make me nervous ... what happens if the new |
93 |
> > > > legal entity has insuffcient funds to pay these people. I suppose it |
94 |
> > > > just goes bankrupt, like any other legal entity. |
95 |
> > > |
96 |
> > > Honestly, I don't see any point in codifying random decisions in bylaws. |
97 |
> > |
98 |
> > Which random decisions? |
99 |
> |
100 |
> Ok, now I was replying to something you wrote: |
101 |
> |
102 |
> "e.g. The council votes to adopt the FHS as a standard of which all |
103 |
> Gentoo developers must adhere within the Gentoo distribution. The |
104 |
> trustees will enact this by amending the by-laws." |
105 |
> |
106 |
> Why would we stick FHS in the by-laws? |
107 |
> |
108 |
|
109 |
It was an example, but not a far-fetched one. Why not put it in there? |
110 |
We should codify things by statute that are key principles of the |
111 |
organization. FHS may not be determined as such, but again it is not an |
112 |
unreasonable example. |
113 |
|
114 |
A better example would be codifying the code of conduct in by-laws. By |
115 |
defining who are members and classes of members delineating the various |
116 |
expectations. |
117 |
|
118 |
e.g. Trustees are held to a higher standard. |
119 |
e.g. Developers are held to a high standard. |
120 |
|
121 |
> > |
122 |
> > > Bylaws are supposed to be general principles we operate on. They |
123 |
> > > don't codify individual operating decisions. Those decisions should |
124 |
> > > be documented, but elsewhere. |
125 |
> > > |
126 |
> > |
127 |
> > Sure, by-laws can codify anything you want to set into statute. It |
128 |
> > allows for enforcement and legal soundness. |
129 |
> |
130 |
> So do any other decisions made by the Trustees. They're all |
131 |
> enforceable. They all represent policy. Bylaws are more about how |
132 |
> the org operates than its individual decisions. |
133 |
> |
134 |
|
135 |
Sure, and I would agree that some items may not be required in the |
136 |
by-laws, but searching the history books is no fun either. |
137 |
|
138 |
> > > That said, I'm all for paying people to do jobs that need to be done |
139 |
> > > reliably when volunteers aren't cutting it (and historically, they |
140 |
> > > haven't been). This is a big argument in favor of an umbrella, |
141 |
> > > because there is an economy in splitting these costs across many orgs. |
142 |
> > > But, if we were independent I'd rather pay a CPA to do the taxes |
143 |
> > > properly/etc. And then we'd make sure that not a dime gets paid to |
144 |
> > > anybody without the CPA knowing about it... |
145 |
> > |
146 |
> > The sad part is, that if years hadn't gone by and it was done |
147 |
> > incrementally over time this wouldn't be such a burden. Again, see my |
148 |
> > reply to Roy regarding umbrellas. |
149 |
> |
150 |
> Sure, but there is a reason it happened, and I suspect it will |
151 |
> continue to happen, because in the end 99% of Gentoo contributors |
152 |
> don't care if the paperwork gets done correctly. There is no reason |
153 |
> an individual couldn't do our taxes, but it is important that they get |
154 |
> done... |
155 |
> |
156 |
|
157 |
Well, that is why I am running. I can at least do it right from the |
158 |
beginning and mandate future Foundation trustees/officer to be held to a |
159 |
standard. |
160 |
|
161 |
> -- |
162 |
> Rich |
163 |
> |
164 |
|
165 |
-- |
166 |
Cheers, |
167 |
Aaron |