1 |
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 3:04 PM Aaron Bauman <bman@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 02:21:51PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: |
4 |
> > On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 2:01 PM Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
> > > |
6 |
> > > Also, we would need to operate two NFPs when at this election |
7 |
> > > we only secured enough candidates to staff one ... if they are all |
8 |
> > > ranked above _reopen_nominations in the poll. |
9 |
> > > |
10 |
> > |
11 |
> > ++ |
12 |
> > |
13 |
> > This just sounds like twice as many opportunities to get things wrong, |
14 |
> > and it splits our resources. |
15 |
> > |
16 |
> |
17 |
> You didn't read my previous reply to Roy. It also does not split |
18 |
> resources. Plain and simple. |
19 |
|
20 |
I sent my reply before receiving yours, so obviously I didn't read it. |
21 |
|
22 |
Even so, running two non-profits splits our money into two bank |
23 |
accounts. It is a division of resources no matter what. |
24 |
|
25 |
> |
26 |
> > > To follow on your example, there are several competing 2FA |
27 |
> > > solutions with differing feature sets. While Nitrokey may be |
28 |
> > > selected for <reasons> the comparative value assesment still |
29 |
> > > needs to be performed or the trustees would be neglecting their |
30 |
> > > duty by rubber stamping council decisions. |
31 |
> > |
32 |
> > Why would we think that the trustees would do any better a job at this |
33 |
> > than the Council? Why would the Council want to waste money? There |
34 |
> > is a limited pool of resources, and if the Council is making decisions |
35 |
> > like this I'd imagine most developers would vote to select people they |
36 |
> > trust to make these decisions. |
37 |
> |
38 |
> No one said the council will do any better at this than the council. |
39 |
|
40 |
Roy suggested that the Trustees would need to assess value, which |
41 |
implies that the Council won't be doing this. |
42 |
|
43 |
> Why would this be a waste of money? |
44 |
|
45 |
I never said it would be a waste of money. I asked Roy why he thought |
46 |
the Council would want to waste money that the Trustees might have to |
47 |
stop. |
48 |
|
49 |
> Your paragraph is full of assumptions and no digestion of what |
50 |
> I wrote. |
51 |
|
52 |
I didn't quote anything you wrote, or reply to anything you wrote. |
53 |
|
54 |
> |
55 |
> > If we went to an umbrella org then there is a good chance that the |
56 |
> > Council will end up making these kinds of decisions. |
57 |
> > |
58 |
> > Besides, why would we want multiple decision-making bodies, where one |
59 |
> > body can choose to invest in something, and then another body can |
60 |
> > ensure that all that investment is wasted by denying complementary |
61 |
> > investment? That could go either way. |
62 |
> > |
63 |
> |
64 |
> It is not multiple decision making bodies. The council is leading and |
65 |
> the Foundation is providing. The only split is that of legal and |
66 |
> financial decision making for (hopefully) obvious reasons. |
67 |
|
68 |
I wasn't replying to your proposal. I was replying to Roy's criticism |
69 |
of your proposal. You proposed one decision-making body. Roy replied |
70 |
and said that we need to stick with two. THAT was what I was |
71 |
responding to. |
72 |
|
73 |
> > > Such bylaws would make me nervous ... what happens if the new |
74 |
> > > legal entity has insuffcient funds to pay these people. I suppose it |
75 |
> > > just goes bankrupt, like any other legal entity. |
76 |
> > |
77 |
> > Honestly, I don't see any point in codifying random decisions in bylaws. |
78 |
> |
79 |
> Which random decisions? |
80 |
|
81 |
Ok, now I was replying to something you wrote: |
82 |
|
83 |
"e.g. The council votes to adopt the FHS as a standard of which all |
84 |
Gentoo developers must adhere within the Gentoo distribution. The |
85 |
trustees will enact this by amending the by-laws." |
86 |
|
87 |
Why would we stick FHS in the by-laws? |
88 |
|
89 |
> |
90 |
> > Bylaws are supposed to be general principles we operate on. They |
91 |
> > don't codify individual operating decisions. Those decisions should |
92 |
> > be documented, but elsewhere. |
93 |
> > |
94 |
> |
95 |
> Sure, by-laws can codify anything you want to set into statute. It |
96 |
> allows for enforcement and legal soundness. |
97 |
|
98 |
So do any other decisions made by the Trustees. They're all |
99 |
enforceable. They all represent policy. Bylaws are more about how |
100 |
the org operates than its individual decisions. |
101 |
|
102 |
> > That said, I'm all for paying people to do jobs that need to be done |
103 |
> > reliably when volunteers aren't cutting it (and historically, they |
104 |
> > haven't been). This is a big argument in favor of an umbrella, |
105 |
> > because there is an economy in splitting these costs across many orgs. |
106 |
> > But, if we were independent I'd rather pay a CPA to do the taxes |
107 |
> > properly/etc. And then we'd make sure that not a dime gets paid to |
108 |
> > anybody without the CPA knowing about it... |
109 |
> |
110 |
> The sad part is, that if years hadn't gone by and it was done |
111 |
> incrementally over time this wouldn't be such a burden. Again, see my |
112 |
> reply to Roy regarding umbrellas. |
113 |
|
114 |
Sure, but there is a reason it happened, and I suspect it will |
115 |
continue to happen, because in the end 99% of Gentoo contributors |
116 |
don't care if the paperwork gets done correctly. There is no reason |
117 |
an individual couldn't do our taxes, but it is important that they get |
118 |
done... |
119 |
|
120 |
-- |
121 |
Rich |