Re: [gentoo-nfp] Extending Social Contract to guarantee that Gentoo will remain volunteer work

[Michał Górny]

On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 09:18:01 -0600
Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@g.o> wrote:

> On 01/26/2017 09:03 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > [discussion intended at -nfp, CC-ing -project]
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I would like to add an additional clause to the Gentoo Social Contract
> > [1], to guarantee that Gentoo will remain a volunteer-based project
> > and will not turn into some kind of paid enterprise. The suggested text
> > would be:
> >
> > | Gentoo is and will remain independent volunteer work. We will never
> > | pay anyone to develop Gentoo, nor will we accept any donations given
> > | on the condition of any particular development.
> >
> > Text improvements welcome.
> >
> > The main idea is to protect volunteers spending their time on Gentoo.
> > I don't want to learn one day that my opinion doesn't matter anymore
> > because a new lead (Council, Trustees, Board, BDFL or any other
> > possible future form) decides that they/he/she will use the donation
> > money to hire paid workers doing the Gentoo work that they desire.
> >
> > I believe that any possible lead Gentoo might elect in the future
> > should still represent the whole Gentoo community, and the community
> > should have the right to refuse to follow the directions set by
> > the lead if he/she stops listening to the community. As volunteers,
> > we have the right to refuse to do something that in our opinion harms
> > Gentoo.
> >
> > Sadly, this could become pointless if the leading bodies keep the power
> > to hire people to work on Gentoo for money. This means that effectively
> > they have the power to spend Gentoo money on pursuing their own goals
> > as long as they can legally claim that the work is done for
> > the benefit of Gentoo. In volunteer-based project, they effectively
> > have to *convince* others to work on their ideas and/or spend
> > a significant effort working on them themselves.
> >
> > The other part is pretty much a formality, that means to make it clear
> > that Gentoo is not supposed to be bribed by third-party companies to
> > alter its course. I don't think it really changes anything but it looks
> > like a nice thing to state.
> >
> > I should note that this doesn't mean to prevent anyone from being paid
> > by third parties to work on Gentoo, or receive any money on account of
> > what he did or is doing for Gentoo. I think that's fine as long as
> > the wider Gentoo community has the right to reject any work that it
> > sees unfit.
> >
> > [1]:https://www.gentoo.org/get-started/philosophy/social-contract.html
> >
>
> This rule would be able to be replaced by whoever that new board is,
> making it not fully effective (not that it's is ineffective).

Are other SC rules unlike? Considering they're not even fully respected
right now...

> Also, I think this would prevent us from hiring outside people to help
> us in things we are not skilled in.  Say, taxes and law type stuff.

I was thinking of that but I wouldn't say taxes and lawyers really
count as people developing Gentoo.

> It'd also prevent us from re-reimbursing gsoc volunteers for travel I think.

Not sure about that. But as long as the money is clearly for travel,
and for doing any specific work I don't think that's a problem.

> Overall I'm not against something like this, but I think it'd be better
> to attack it in the other direction.  Decide what can we spend money on,
> not what we can't.  At the moment it's up to the trustees to spend the
> money and I haven't seen or heard of any bad behaviour there.

While I don't mind devising a more specific rules, I'm not sure if
a detailed list would really fit the style of the Social Contract.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>