1 |
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On Mon, 2008-05-19 at 21:36 +0100, Steve Long wrote: |
4 |
>> |
5 |
>> Yeah but I disagree that the Council is limited to CTO, since the whole |
6 |
>> pupose of Gentoo is to develop software. I'd argue the Trustees are a |
7 |
>> Supervisory Board, and the Council an Executive Board within the two-tier |
8 |
>> model. |
9 |
> |
10 |
> CTO is an executive position and title. Given full control over R&D, |
11 |
> technology, technical direction, etc. |
12 |
> |
13 |
Sure: the point I'm making is that the Executive body oversees the core |
14 |
day-to-day activities of producing whatever goods or services the |
15 |
organisation provides. In Gentoo's case, that's software development, and I |
16 |
don't think the Trustees can declare that to be simply technology related to |
17 |
the industry: it's the *whole* of what Gentoo does. |
18 |
|
19 |
> But the council is not over the foundation wrt to hierarchy. It's |
20 |
> supposed to be a subsidiary board. For example, Council dictates to |
21 |
> infra. But infra lacks what they need to make council happy. Decision to |
22 |
> approve/fund, lies with foundation. So who's the top? ( not meant in |
23 |
> terms of power ) |
24 |
> |
25 |
Hmm I thought the Council had authority to approve expenditure? IIRC Gentoo UK |
26 |
received a small amount last year for the hall hire. |
27 |
|
28 |
While I agree that the Trustees have the legal responsibility, and would |
29 |
welcome their actively engaging with financial, legal, personnel and indeed |
30 |
social matters, I see that as *support* for the core work, not _authority_ |
31 |
over it. Agreed, they are at the top of that hierarchy, as you put it, |
32 |
certainly in legal terms wrt IP. I still think this is more like a |
33 |
Supervisory Board (including the Chair and non-execs) with the Council as |
34 |
Executive Board. |
35 |
|
36 |
> Something happens technically and Gentoo is sued. Does council then step |
37 |
> in and represent Gentoo. No the foundation does, and take full blame and |
38 |
> responsibility for councils actions or etc. |
39 |
> |
40 |
Well the disclaimer of any and all warranty, express or implied, contained in |
41 |
the GPL means there can be no legal comeback for any technical failings as |
42 |
far as I can see. What technical screw-up could possibly happen that would |
43 |
incur liability for the Foundation? |
44 |
|
45 |
Even the hypothetical "rogue dev" or group of devs would imo only incur |
46 |
liability for themselves as individuals, not anyone else who was not party |
47 |
to, and had no knowledge of, their actions. |
48 |
|
49 |
> In a case like the present, where the council is to be replaced per some |
50 |
> policy. There is no entity over the council to see that through. Because |
51 |
> of our current structure. Nor are there any checks or balances. |
52 |
> |
53 |
Hmm that's true enough. My feeling is that the Council is pretty open in its |
54 |
meetings (more so this year than last, since meetings are open to the floor) |
55 |
so the check and balance are the devs. And there can't always be yet another |
56 |
body to oversee changes; at some point it has to stop. Granted, the Trustees |
57 |
have bylaws, and are legally formed to follow those, but that is no guarantee |
58 |
of anything, based on the past and also on the attempts by drobbins to stuff |
59 |
the board with his nominees: that structure can easily be subverted iow. |
60 |
Since the Council deals with the stuff we're all interested in, there is a |
61 |
guaranteed level of interest in their meetings and decisions. |
62 |
|
63 |
> More to the point that this hurts Gentoo technically. While companies |
64 |
> like Redhat can partner with say Intel. Making sure their stuff is |
65 |
> certified on Intel hardware. There would need to be liaisons if that was |
66 |
> to happen for Gentoo. |
67 |
> |
68 |
I thought Gentoo already has agreements with other organisations? That was |
69 |
given as a reason for not simply ditching the old Foundation and starting |
70 |
afresh. But agreed, liason with external entities and the wider environment, |
71 |
is very much under the remit of the Supervisory Board, or the Chair and |
72 |
non-execs. |
73 |
|
74 |
> Like say the council says we want to support Intel's newest yet to be |
75 |
> released chipset. They mention that to the board/officers. Whom then in |
76 |
> turn contact Intel and facilitate a vendor relationship. Which is then |
77 |
> handed back to the council, to see through technically. |
78 |
> |
79 |
> Again normal organization like you would see in any normal business |
80 |
> entity. Which the Gentoo Foundation is a business entity, |
81 |
|
82 |
It's not though is it? It's a charity, based on volunteer work. |
83 |
|
84 |
> so should have some structure to reflect that. Given how chaotic at times |
85 |
> our existing structure is, or lack there of. I can see it making a huge |
86 |
> difference in the long run. |
87 |
> |
88 |
My feeling is that that risks losing the sense of "creative anarchy" that |
89 |
others have mentioned to me as being a bonus of working on Gentoo. Simply |
90 |
put, Gentoo devs are not beholden to any company, nor deadlines, and I |
91 |
imagine quite like it like that (I certainly enjoy the fact that I am not |
92 |
answerable to anyone for the bits of Free work I do), so expecting them |
93 |
collectively to form a "business entity" is unrealistic, perhaps. |
94 |
|
95 |
Businesses using the technology, as you have mentioned, are another matter, |
96 |
similarly to any other distro, and should imo pay a regular fee of some sort |
97 |
to Gentoo. (If it doesn't help their bottom line, they wouldn't be using it.) |
98 |
|
99 |
>> The portage team strike me more as the CTO in that setup though I admit |
100 |
>> your knowledge of these titles outweighs mine ;) |
101 |
> |
102 |
> What does the portage team have to do wrt to R&D, or technical direction |
103 |
> of Gentoo as a whole? |
104 |
|
105 |
It was the "industry-specific technologies" part of the CTO def'n you linked |
106 |
that made me think of that. Within the world of software distros, what is |
107 |
specific to Gentoo is portage and the ebuilds it enables. |
108 |
|
109 |
> Portage is just one piece of the pie, that the council oversees, decides the |
110 |
> recipe, and bakes. |
111 |
|
112 |
Yes but it does that for everything produced by Gentoo. Support and |
113 |
documentation are built around the software, not the other way round. |
114 |
|
115 |
> Thus CTO, there is no |
116 |
> one beyond the CTO on technical matters. They are the top, and they |
117 |
> report in layman's to the CEO/Officers, and board at times if they are |
118 |
> split. |
119 |
|
120 |
HR, Finance, Legal, IT et al are only there to support the main |
121 |
product/workflow in any corp. I'm curious as to what else, besides the |
122 |
distro, you see as Gentoo's product? |
123 |
|
124 |
> For decisions that might involve them or to simply keep them |
125 |
> informed or in the loop. |
126 |
> |
127 |
> Put it like this, Council answers to devs. Foundation answers to |
128 |
> community. At some point the council should answer to the Foundation as |
129 |
> well. Otherwise the community has no voice, only developers. |
130 |
> |
131 |
I agree the Council should answer to the Foundation, and vice versa, most |
132 |
specifically in the Foundation's case wrt how their work supports the |
133 |
mainline activity. And I'm all in favour of the Trustees taking on social and |
134 |
political issues, as well as the Financial, Legal and so on. |
135 |
|
136 |
> Although the Foundation, board/officers, will never dictate to the |
137 |
> council/CTO on technical matters. At best only suggest, based on the |
138 |
> will of the community, vendors, or etc. What the council does from |
139 |
> there, is up to them. As it is now. Because after all they know what is |
140 |
> best technically, and that's their call to make in the end. |
141 |
> |
142 |
Yes and that technical stuff is not simply industry-specific technologies to |
143 |
support some other activity: it's the whole of the activity of the |
144 |
organisation. |
145 |
|
146 |
Please do check out the Supervisory Board link if you haven't; it's a model |
147 |
that's much more prevalent in the EU than the US, and I feel it's much closer |
148 |
to the intent of the Foundation than your suggestions for the Trustees as the |
149 |
Executive Board. |
150 |
|
151 |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervisory_board |
152 |
-- |
153 |
gentoo-nfp@l.g.o mailing list |