Re: [gentoo-nfp] Gentoo metastructure reform - reality and SPI

[Roy Bamford]

On 2017.01.17 13:25, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> On 01/11/2017 12:03 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> > There has been a lot of debate recently regarding Gentoo’s
> > metastructure. In response to this, there have been various
> proposals
> > for reform. These other proposals appear to be focused on changing
> the
> > way Gentoo operates to conform with a traditional corporate
> structure.
> > I’d like to make an alternative proposal - change the organisational
> > structure to conform with how Gentoo actually operates.
> >
> > Let’s first consider the proposed metastructure of another proposal
> > that’s currently being discussed:
> >
> >         |--Council--(various projects)
> >         |
> >         |          |--Recruiting
> > Board --+--Comrel--|
> >         |          |--Something else
> >         |
> >         |--PR
> >         |         |--Releng (if recognized)
> >         |--Infra--|
> >                   |--Portage (possibly)
> >
> > This is a reasonable-looking traditional corporate structure, but
> Gentoo
> > is not a traditional corporation. Our primary purpose is to produce
> a
> > Linux distribution. The Gentoo Foundation exists to handles legal
> and
> > administrative matters and should serve the distribution, not the
> other
> > way around.
> >
> > Despite the best efforts of the Board, the Foundation has repeatedly
> > been plagued with problems such as poor record-keeping and at one
> point
> > even fell into bad standing. I very much appreciate the work the
> > Trustees have put in (especially in recent months to try and
> straighten
> > everything out), but I have serious concerns about the Foundation’s
> > long-term prospects, let alone handing them more responsibilities
> and power.
> >
> > Gentoo is a community-driven project lead by the Council, and we
> should
> > keep it that way. I therefore propose we follow the lead of other
> major
> > projects[0] and become associated with SPI[1], making use of their
> > various services[2] such as accepting donations, and holding funds
> and
> > other assets. As an associated project, Gentoo would retain its
> > independence - SPI would not own, govern, or otherwise control us.
> >
> > SPI requires an associated project to have a liaison - a person who
> is
> > authorised to direct SPI on behalf of the project. I propose this
> person
> > be a Council member, selected from a vote of all Council members.
> Such a
> > person must receive at least 50% of total votes and no ‘no’ votes.
> If
> > this process fails to result in the selection of a liaison it will
> go to
> > a majority vote from all developers.
> >
> > The new metastructure would look like this:
> >
> >         |-- SPI liaison
> >         |
> >         |
> > Council -- Various projects
> >
> >
> > [0] http://www.spi-inc.org/projects/
> > [1] http://www.spi-inc.org/
> > [2] http://www.spi-inc.org/projects/services/
> >
>
> I think this structure could work -- despite being dependent on an
> outside entity -- as long as our contract with SPI allows us to retain
> rights to our assets. i.e. they can't rob us blind in the event of a
> falling out or something.
>
> What really should decide this imo are the people who have been doing
> foundation work already. Ask them if they're okay with throwing away
> their work for a company to handle it for us. They're the ones most
> impacted by such a decision and deserve the most influence imo.
> --
> Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer
> OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
> fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C  1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6
>
>

Michael,

Considering joining an umbrella is not a new thing.  William (wltjr) has 
already provided links to the previous work on the topic.
As a trustee for over eight years, I personally, don't see it as 
'throwing away' anything as long as its the right thing for Gentoo 
(the Foundation and the Distro). Its just progress.

If it happens, all the Foundations assets would be merged with 
the umbrella company and they would own them. The Foundation 
would be wound up and replaced with some group that managed 
the interface with the umbrella somehow.  Exact details vary
from umbrella to umbrella and there are are least two to engage
with before we make up our mind if we should join an umbrella 
company and if so, which one.

Asset separation within the umbrella company is a bookkeeping
exercise. 

Of course, if they won't have us, we don't get to make a decision
to join.

-- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) a member of
elections
gentoo-ops
forum-mods