Re: [gentoo-nfp] Questions For Gentoo Foundation Trustee Candidates

[Alec Warner]

On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 7:40 AM Aaron Bauman <bman@g.o> wrote:

> On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 07:52:53AM -0700, Alec Warner wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 5:18 AM Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o>
> wrote:
> >
> > > On 2019.07.13 13:12, Roy Bamford wrote:
> > > > Team,
> > > >
> > > > This is a meta topic to collect Questions For Gentoo Foundation
> > > > Trustee Candidates together.
> > >
> > > We have several candidates with a declared platform of dissolving
> > > the Gentoo foundation.
> > >
> > > 1. Will all candidates make their position on the future of the
> Foundation
> > > clear.
> > >
> >
> > I plan to dissolve the Foundation. I would prefer the assets go to an
> > umbrella, but I'm also open to other options.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > 2. Will all candidates explain the reasoning supporting their position
> > > on their future plans for the existence (or otherwise) of the
> Foundation.
> > >
> >
> > The Foundation has three main problems:
> >
> > - It needs a minimum of three capable / interested trustees to be on the
> > board and operate the Foundation. Note here i don't mean that these three
> > humans do the work (because they should contract with professionals to do
> > much of it.) I'm not convinced there are three people to do it. In this
> > election we have 4 humans for 3 slots. When discussing with the current
> > board, half of the board doesn't even want to be on the board; but
> without
> > a board the Foundation would be in trouble. This is not the kind of board
> > that I would want to have, and I think its one reason why the work the
> > board is accountable for rarely happens. This is not unique to this year.
> > In previous years; boards that did not even do basic Foundation
> activities
> > (e.g. taxes, accounting, etc.) *and* ran unopposed (e.g. some years there
> > was no election.)
> >
>
> Can you explain why you ran for election on the platform of dissolving the
> foundation, in favor of an umbrella, but have not conducted any research
> into
> what is required to do so? Presented any definitive options, figures,
> impacts,
> etc to the electorate?
>

The electorate doesn't care about the details of the foundation. Of the
80-odd members, ~30 of them will vote.
There are 4 people running and 3 seats, so it doesn't take much to get
elected (as noted earlier in the thread.)

I'm happy to share a proposal at a later date.


>
> Is this why you voluntarily put yourself up for re-election during the
> current
> cycle?
>

I'm not sure what 'this' is referring to, but I agreed with Robin's premise
which was that if Robin and I stepped aside mid-term it would free up more
seats and we might have a more vigorous election (as opposed to the usual,
which is we win by running unopposed.) I also bought into his argument that
it would be a great opportunity to sweep the board. Three open seats meant
that if a faction of Gentoo wanted to take control of the Foundation they
simply needed to find and elect three people and those people would have a
board majority.

The outcome was 4 candidates for 3 seats, so we get to have an election
(good!) but still pretty minimal participation from the community :/


>
> > - The members themselves don't hold anyone accountable. Basically this
> > follows the last piece of the first bullet; that the board can basically
> be
> > bad at their job and keep their seats trivially. The members are supposed
> > to care about the board's mission (to support Gentoo!) but in fact most
> > members do nothing and vote once a year when asked (like now!) I suspect
> if
> > a potato was put on the ballot the members would vote for that as a
> trustee
> > if it filled a seat; because they don't care about the foundation working
> > correctly or not provided it continues to fund Infra (nominally one of
> two
> > useful things the Foundation actually does.)
> >
>
> This can be fixed by proper by-laws, but the board has failed to adopt any
> reasonable by-laws to make forward progress.  Also, I think a bit of
> transparency from the board would result in our sister nations
> understanding why
> by-laws and Articles of Incorporation are important.
>
> Many understand the significance of a GLEP, but do not neccasarily
> understand
> the importance/role of by-laws and AoI.
>
> Additionally, I do believe members and devs know the Foundation "holds the
> purse" as they have seen from the purchase of the Nitrokeys to support
> their
> mission.
>
> > - The scope of work done by the Foundation during it's 15 years is
> minimal
> > (trademark defense and funding) and I believe an umbrella organization
> can
> > do both. I concede it limits future options (because once we give assets
> to
> > the umbrella they can only do what is in any agreement we sign.) However,
> > its a risk I'm willing to take given the poor performance of the
> Foundation
> > in the past (and the anticipated poor performance in the future; see
> first
> > two points.)
> >
> > -A
> >
>
> c.f my statement above and consider the performance during this cycle.
>
> Overall, each individual has simply pointed out the financial failures of
> the
> foundation... which I agree with.  However, dissolution has many more
> potential ramifications than benefits.
>
> The majority of failures can simply be fixed by retaining a CPA.
>

If I was convinced we had the support of the community and a board to run
the Foundation for the next 10 years (retaining a CPA, doing other required
duties) I'd not dissolve the Foundation at all. However, I'm not convinced
of that. You might ask "what would it take to convince me" and the answer
is likely more community participation in board matters, elections, etc.
You are one human; but it will take more than one to do this job.


>
> >
> > > --
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Roy Bamford
> > > (Neddyseagoon) a member of
> > > elections
> > > gentoo-ops
> > > forum-mods
> > > arm64
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Aaron
>