Gentoo Archives: gentoo-nfp

From: Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk>
To: gentoo-nfp@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-nfp] Re: nominations
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 21:31:57
Richard Freeman wrote:

> Roy Bamford wrote: >> The rule prevents the Foundation being a subset of the council and >> preseves the split that was intended when the Foundation was >> established. Maybe the split wasn't a good idea in the first place? >> Its certainly an odd management structure that Gentoo has. >>
Many organisations separate out day-to-day "product development" from legal oversight, HR, finance etc, and interaction with the wider environment.
>> It also prevents a huge hole being left in the gentoo management >> structure by the loss of a single individual. >> > > I understand the arguments that have been put forth for the separation, > but I don't agree. Honestly, the one organization being largely a > subset of the other sounds perfectly fine to me - almost ideal. There > should really be "One Gentoo" - the more unity between the organizations > the better. Of course, the skills needed to be a trustee and a council > member are not identical, so it isn't a bad idea to allow different > people to participate on each. However, forced independence isn't a > good idea in my opinion. >
Hmm I see it as a "separation of powers" which yes, is forced, but it's the Constitution that members voted for, isn't it? Given that the skillset is so very different, how can "different people participate on each" if there are not two separate bodies? NB: I'm not saying that people don't fall on a range, from non-technical but good with people, to totally crap with people but good technically, nor even that one precludes the other. Simply that they are very different jobs, and if you only have a Council, voted on by developers, that will naturally reflect their interests. And there are other people involved. Further, many developers, while being happy to discuss technical minutiae, will run a mile from non-technical issues, preferring to label them 'political' until it's something they care about (whereupon it becomes a 'pressing technical problem';) Irrespective of what you call them, they still need to be handled, as was evinced at the beginning of last year.
> At the same time, I appreciate that doing a good job on either > organization takes time, so care should be taken before just stepping up > to the plate for both. On the other hand, representation matters more > on a board than effort. In fact, I'd encourage both boards to delegate > tasks to individuals willing to perform them and focus more on > oversight. This largely happens with the council (devrel, recruiters, > and other project/arch leads), but the trustees seem to be a bit more > limited in manpower.
Agreed. Hopefully, now that the legal issues have been resolved, we'll be able to see the Trustees take on the other things they discussed in their manifestos last time around, and will no doubt raise this year. Personally I think things have got a lot better in the last year, and I'd like to thank the people who have made that happen, usually out of public sight and for no thanks, nor even acknowledgement.