| 1 |
For what it's worth, I personally think that the Foundation being the |
| 2 |
legal owner of its own assets (axiomatic but true) is reason enough |
| 3 |
for the Trustees, as legal representatives of the Foundation, to have |
| 4 |
oversight of whoever is responsible for managing it. This, in my |
| 5 |
opinion, is a good reason for the infra lead to be directly |
| 6 |
accountable to the Foundation because infra is maintaining assets that |
| 7 |
the Foundation legally owns. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
As for mirrors, I would like to make the following comment: |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Mirrors may not be legally owned by the foundation, however, the |
| 12 |
foundation is (or should be) in charge of the distfiles.gentoo.org |
| 13 |
domain name and I presume has some sort of administrative control over |
| 14 |
which mirrors are "official" and which ones are not. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Presumably the mirrors themselves are pulling (through however many |
| 17 |
layers) from hardware that IS owned or operated by the foundation, and |
| 18 |
I'm assuming that the foundation ought to be in a position to set |
| 19 |
policy that mirrors would be required to comply with if they want the |
| 20 |
foundation's cooperation in being listed as an official mirror. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
TLDR: if a mirror is a private residence, it's still the phone |
| 23 |
company's job to say what their phone number is, and mirrors who |
| 24 |
misbehave (just in theory, like for example serving corrupt files) |
| 25 |
ought to be subject to the foundation being able to revoke their |
| 26 |
credentials that make them a mirror. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 9:56 AM, Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> wrote: |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 12:48 PM, Daniel Robbins <drobbins@××××××.org> |
| 32 |
> wrote: |
| 33 |
>> |
| 34 |
>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 10:43 AM, Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> wrote: |
| 35 |
>>> |
| 36 |
>>> |
| 37 |
>>> Specifically regarding your proposal, I'm not sure what outcome you are |
| 38 |
>>> actually expecting. Explicitly stating that the Foundation owns and controls |
| 39 |
>>> assets that it literally owns and controls seems a bit tautological (and |
| 40 |
>>> thus of little value.) It might be useful to state that in that event of a |
| 41 |
>>> 'hostile takeover' type situation the board will pursue all legal remedies; |
| 42 |
>>> but this too seems somewhat tautological (but I'm open to more leeway here.) |
| 43 |
>> |
| 44 |
>> |
| 45 |
>> Yes, it is unclear as to how specifically this is protected against, and |
| 46 |
>> if it is the case that sufficient safeguards are in place, and that everyone |
| 47 |
>> involved in -infra is aware that the |
| 48 |
>> |
| 49 |
>> Foundation essentially is ultimately 'in charge' of the servers, then this |
| 50 |
>> issues, as far as I can tell, is resolved. |
| 51 |
> |
| 52 |
> |
| 53 |
> I think for now its the general culture from the current infrastructure lead |
| 54 |
> (robbat2) and the draft policy that tries to clearly describe the situation. |
| 55 |
> At least the current infra team is aware of a number of past incidents (one |
| 56 |
> being the one you mentioned, but there are others) and IMHO avoiding |
| 57 |
> impropriety (and avoiding even the appearance of impropriety) is pretty high |
| 58 |
> upon our list. |
| 59 |
> |
| 60 |
> I'll try to aim for the policy to be out by the next meeting; but the infra |
| 61 |
> lead is pretty busy with work so it might not be finalized. |
| 62 |
> |
| 63 |
> -A |
| 64 |
> |
| 65 |
>> |
| 66 |
>> |
| 67 |
>> -Daniel |
| 68 |
> |
| 69 |
> |
Archives