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

[Daniel Campbell]

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