Re: [gentoo-nfp] Agenda item: Formalize Gentoo's org structure

[Matthew Thode]

On 18-04-09 08:58:03, Alec Warner wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 6:24 AM, Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@g.o>
> wrote:
>
> > Gentoo has been known to be a two headed entity for a while.  While the
> > fact is that only one of the heads has legal standing to be called
> > Gentoo, the other head has been doing most of the technical work.
> > Unfortunately having two heads means that there can be fighting between
> > them.  In order to finally put the matter to some rest I seek to define
> > Gentoo's org structure.
> >
> > Currently, legally, it only consists of the following:
> > 1. foundation members
> > 2. trustees
> > 3. officers (don't have to be foundation members or trustees)
> >
> > I wish to extend that to the following.
> > 1. foundation members
> > 2. trustees
> > 3. officers (don't have to be foundation members or trustees)
> > 3.1 infra members (or at least the lead)
> > 3.2 comrel members (or at least the lead)
> > 3.3 council members
> >
>
> People in 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 are already Gentoo developers and yet some
> developers choose not to associate with the Foundation.
>
> If I was a council member, could I continue to be a council member and not
> be a member of the Foundation? If not, it could appear like this is an
> exclusionary measure (e.g. in order to be a council member you must also be
> willing to be a Foundation member.) If Foundation membership is optional,
> it looks similar to the status quo (some of comrel / Council / etc are
> Foundation members, some are not.)
>
>

Yes, I thought I mentioned in the email that officers (thus all of
secition 3) do not have to be members or turstees.

> >
> > Infrastructure has a clearly defined role in Gentoo.  Namely that of
> > managing foundation infrastructure resources.  Bringing those members
> > under the foundation's umbrella formalizes this.  Infra has previously
> > been fairly nebulous as to who directs them (having been directed by
> > council, trustees and comrel).
> >
>
> The short answer is Infra is directed by Council for project matters and
> Trustees for legal / money matters.
> I've been working on drawing up this policy explicitly in recent times.
>
>

I'd extend that to be 'comrel for HR matters' as well, but sgtm.

> >
> > Comrel has the clear analog of being the HR (human relations).  HR
> > is three to protect the business from human related infighting.  Comrel
> > was previously under the direction of the council, primarily for
> > historical reasons (the foundation was not well staffed or run until
> > recently).  I thank the council for managing this.
> >
> > Council is supposed to be the technical leadership within Gentoo, over
> > the last decade or so this responsibility has ballooned to encompass
> > things out side this scope.  This seeks to clearly define the powers of
> > the council to that of technical leadership.
> >
> >
> > One of the drawbacks of this is that being an officer means being an
> > 'organ' of the business, meaning that some of the current members may
> > have conflicts with their current job.  To this I ask 'Is what you are
> > doing now not vital?  If it is doesn't that make you an organ (even if
> > not explicitly stated as such)?'
> >
> > One of the good things about this (other than clearly defining roles and
> > boundaries) is that it allows council members to server as Trustees.
> > This would require a bylaw change, but has been something often
> > complained about.
> >
>
> The above is a bit vague to me. My reading is:
>
> We continue to have a Foundation, with members (now expanded in this
> proposal), the board still meets monthy and makes decisions, the board is
> elected by the members every yeah. The board directs Infra and Comrel? The
> board does not direct the council?
>
> Is that the summary?

Not quite, I didn't have time to type it all out, because sleep.

Council (and comrel) would continue to exist as it currently does.
The currently voted in people would be offered the positions.
Anyone not wishing to stay will be replaced by that body's appointment
mechanism (voting for the council).

I'd suggest that at least the leads for each body would need to be
confirmed, since council has no lead it means they all need confirmed
(I'd rather this not be the case).  The Trustees would only appoint
someone in the absence of a candidate taking their place (in order to
continue operation of the project).

(my opinion)  All current members of all the mentioned bodies would be
offered the same position (even ones who seem to hate me).  Confirmation
would be mostly a rubber stamp process.

As far as 'appeals of decisions goes', while I'd love to be able to
promise something (like we'll always back council on technical matters
or comrel on HR matters), but we can't.  Sometimes there are legal or
practical reasons we cannot (too much money to rent all the compute
resources available so we can test all the packages all the ways or if
we are somehow directed to do something illegal).

(my opinion) in practice we'd leave the council alone in their
decisions (maybe something once a decade? seems about right).  We'd do
the same with comrel, much how I don't think council has overturned a
comrel decision in memory I don't think the trustees would.

-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)