| 1 |
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:46 AM, Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> In general, I don't have a problem with this but it needs some fine tuning |
| 4 |
> to permit 'bug bounties' and the like where there is a well defined scope |
| 5 |
> of work which is good value for Gentoo to pay for for the end result. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> The Foundation has paid a bug bounty once that I an aware of. |
| 8 |
> The discussion and vote is in the trustees meetings logs. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> What about non technical work? |
| 11 |
> We may actually need to pay for legal and or financial advice and |
| 12 |
> the like, where we cannot find pro bono support. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
++ |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
In any case, I think this is largely a non-issue, other than maybe |
| 18 |
just talking about it and being honest about the state of affairs. I |
| 19 |
don't think we need to optimize right now for something that isn't |
| 20 |
likely to be the reality anytime soon. On the other hand, nobody can |
| 21 |
say what the needs of Gentoo will be 20 years from now (not that I |
| 22 |
think anybody working on Gentoo then should feel bound by what we do |
| 23 |
today). |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
We're really not in any danger of being taken over by professional |
| 26 |
management anytime soon. I get that there is some of that talk and I |
| 27 |
see this as a bit of a line in the sand in reaction, but I don't think |
| 28 |
it is necessary as a formal policy. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
I don't have any issue with the odd bug bounty, but I think there are |
| 31 |
a bunch of lessons to be learned about the last time we tried this (it |
| 32 |
isn't like anything bad happened, but it wasn't optimal either). For |
| 33 |
the moment just staying compliant occupies about 150% of the |
| 34 |
Foundation's time it seems, not that the one has to come sequentially |
| 35 |
before the other. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
I'll agree with William's sentiment that people can already hire |
| 38 |
Gentoo devs to do things anyway, though I'll take it a step further |
| 39 |
and say there really is no such thing as a "bad contribution" as long |
| 40 |
as the overall principles of Gentoo remain in control. I personally |
| 41 |
think that upstart is a bit of a dead end at this point, but if |
| 42 |
somebody wants to pay somebody a fortune to make it a viable option |
| 43 |
for our users, well, more power to them. That doesn't lessen in any |
| 44 |
way the experience of those who choose differently, and that is the |
| 45 |
power of Gentoo (just an arbitrary example in a contentious space). |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
I'll also say that while I do think that it is best to leave the |
| 48 |
governance in the control of the developers, it isn't because I |
| 49 |
believe we should feel like we have some personal claim to Gentoo such |
| 50 |
that we can shackle those who come after us. I think that developers |
| 51 |
should control the distro because they've demonstrated that they can |
| 52 |
be trusted and because they're invested, but beyond the GPL I don't |
| 53 |
think that anybody owes us anything down the road. It isn't about |
| 54 |
control so that we can take it where we want to but control because it |
| 55 |
is the best way to ensure that Gentoo keeps going where we've already |
| 56 |
agreed we want it to go (social contract and all that). |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
In general though I would not be eager to see Gentoo change into a |
| 59 |
largely-paid organization. I think it really changes the character of |
| 60 |
any community, and I think anybody would be hard-pressed to come up |
| 61 |
with an example of where this is not the case. |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
-- |
| 64 |
Rich |
Archives