Gentoo Archives: gentoo-nfp

From: "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvicetto@g.o>
To: gentoo-nfp <gentoo-nfp@l.g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-nfp] List of items to be addressed by audit
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:18:23
Message-Id: Pine.LNX.4.64.1103311309240.12940@woodpecker.gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-nfp] List of items to be addressed by audit by "William L. Thomson Jr."
1 On Thu, 31 Mar 2011, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
2
3 > On Thu, 2011-03-31 at 07:13 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
4 >> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 7:11 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
5
6 I've kept out of this thread up until now with the hopes it would die, but
7 that seems increasingly unlikely. Thus as a member of the foundation,
8 someone that was around back in 2008 and that did bother to follow the
9 discussions back then and finally as one of the people that actually run
10 the 2008 election, I have a few comments.
11
12 >> You're pointing out that the bylaws don't explicitly grant the
13 >> trustees the power to appoint themselves as officers.
14 >>
15 >> The trustees are pointing out that the bylaws don't explicitly forbid
16 >> the trustees the power to appoint themselves as officers.
17 >>
18 >> Both are true.
19 >
20 > Again I did not go far enough when helping to author the current bylaws.
21 > I had specific intention which people are discarding, and interpreting
22 > in ways other than I had intended. I hope that makes more sense now.
23
24 The bylaws approved in 2008 were subject to a public discussion in the
25 mailing list. Even though I wasn't a trustee and don't have any "inside
26 information" about the discussion within the team, I did talk about them
27 with other trustees. Whether William "lead" that discussion within
28 Trustees is something only the other members can answer, but even though
29 he was very vocal in the public, we was not the only Trustee involved on
30 the discussion and the approved bylaws are not what he initially pushed
31 for. Some members of the community, me included, did participate in the
32 discussion and expressed their views about the bylaws.
33 A "legal" system may take into account the "desire" or "purpose" of a
34 legislator when a particular piece of legislation was approved, but first
35 and foremost it tries to pursue the compliance with the approved text
36 (written text). Furthermore, when taking into account the "desire" or
37 "purpose" of the legislator, it will look at the global discussion and the
38 several alternatives submitted for discussion, it won't rely simply in the
39 will or word of one of the legislators.
40
41 So you may disagree with the interpretation of the bylaws of the current
42 trustees, you may even argue that it goes against what you were trying to
43 do, but that doesn't mean they've necessarily diverged from the global
44 intent at the time the bylaws were approved. Nor does it mean you
45 (individual, former trustee) have any special authority to "judge" the
46 compliance.
47
48 >>> You keep saying you are fine with 5 trustees. There is nothing imposing
49 >>> that limit, and the number should be much higher. Even with elections
50 >>> not much point, unless more are running than open seats. Which since
51 >>> there can be up to 21 trustees. There is plenty of open seats.
52 >>
53 >> I think we need to have some balance here. In the past we've had
54 >> difficulty filling all the trustee slots as it is. In fact, last year
55 >> we didn't even have an election.
56 >
57 > Yes, and there was not elections for a few years prior to 2008. Till I
58 > greased the wheels and got them spinning. Not that I am anything special
59 > or wonderful, just saw nothing happening, so made something happen good
60 > or bad :)
61 >
62 >> Having more seats would increase the labor pool a little, but could
63 >> lead to issues if we can't fill them all in future elections.
64 >
65 > The amount of trustees can fluctuate, nothing wrong with that. It does
66 > not have to be a fixed number, or the same year after year.
67 >
68 >> Also, not having an election basically makes the trustees a list of anybody
69 >> who volunteered for the job, and doesn't give the foundation
70 >> membership a real chance to vet them via election.
71 >
72 > I am not sure there is much difference to straight up volunteering and
73 > being elected. In all honesty most people care little about the
74 > foundation. I really doubt they spend much time thinking about the roles
75 > people will play as trustees and elect them based on such.
76
77 (the following snippet was pulled out of order and after the above so I
78 can address both at the same time)
79
80 >> I'm not for brushing problems under the rug either, but leadership in
81 >> a volunteer organization is less about delegation and more about
82 >> inspiration. Sure, you need to use the resources you do have, but you
83 >> have to exercise care about how you do it.
84 >
85 > I agree, and I don't see the current state of things to be
86 > inspirational. I had no involvement in there not being elections in
87 > 2010, or when ever. Clearly the foundation loses steam on a recurring
88 > basis :)
89
90 About having 5 trustees, that's a number that members seem comfortable
91 with and that no one up until now has contested (trustes and foundation
92 members).
93 About having more, I still recall us having 13 members was seen on 2007 /
94 2008 as one of the reasons things got where they did back then. So, even
95 though having more members could, in theory, help, we should be careful to
96 ensure that we don't get again to a point where no one knows what's going
97 on or thinks another member is working on an issue, when no one is.
98
99 Back in 2007 / 2008 you did some noise that lead to increased attention to
100 the Foundation and that lead the Board of Trustees to finally call for an
101 election.
102 However, you had no role whatsoever in the running of the election[1] and
103 in making sure members could vote[2], tallying the votes and publishing
104 the results[3].
105
106 [1] -
107 http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev-announce/msg_fbddc338d33694b427a238635a1a5f05.xml
108 [2] -
109 http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev-announce/msg_e0e0007a051acd73f0f23d274902884d.xml
110 [3] -
111 http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev-announce/msg_696ab04034ee9a9f0961a868d307a99d.xml
112
113 To clear any doubts that your comments about later elections may have
114 cast, for those that didn't or don't follow the mailing lists, the reason
115 we didn't have a "voting" for the 2010 election[4] was that the number of
116 candidates was the same as the number of open seats[5].
117
118 [4] -
119 http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev-announce/msg_d9d026baf9b5ef5f94deae70980a104c.xml
120 [5] -
121 http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev-announce/msg_dce1c5971c53b8935f781004cf1d9b0b.xml
122
123 I, as a foundation member, am very happy with the job done by the current
124 trustees. I don't consider everything is perfect, but by paying attention
125 to the meetings logs and seeing trustees actions, I'm convinced they are
126 very much concerned and dedicated to their roles. Could things be better?
127 Sure, but such is life, even more on a volunteer organization.
128
129 >> Just having an election also imposes a very minimal barrier to entry
130 >> (you have to be at least interested enough to get involved so that
131 >> people recognize your name).
132 >
133 > That alone could be a problem. There could be experienced senior people
134 > in Gentoo who are just quite doing their work. They would have a hard
135 > time being elected, not being well known. After all elections are more
136 > about popularity than qualifications ;)
137 >
138 >
139 >> I don't think anybody disputes that. Every member has an opportunity
140 >> every other year to get rid of any trustee they dislike. Every member
141 >> also has an opportunity to volunteer to help out. The trustees are
142 >> volunteers like everybody else in Gentoo - if you have an itch scratch
143 >> it! I'd certainly like to see us catch up on tax compliance, but I'm
144 >> not going to bug the current trustees to death until they quit,
145 >
146 > FYI I was bugged to death, thus I resigned and stepped down. Not to
147 > mention I realized problems back in 2008 with the treasurer. I could not
148 > get others to realize such, thus my efforts were futile at the time.
149 > Thus I am not surprised in the least regarding the present state of
150 > things :)
151 >
152 >> as
153 >> simply pointing out problems doesn't fix them. It isn't bad to point
154 >> out problems, but we're not going to fix them by replying to each
155 >> other's emails endlessly.
156 >
157 > Again I never had any intention of starting a lengthy thread. I really
158 > just wanted one reply to my first post and thats it.
159
160 As a subscriber to this ml I have no doubt about your opinion on the
161 current state of affairs or the current trustees. Any doubt was cleared
162 many emails ago.
163
164 >> I have mixed feelings about this entire email chain.
165 >
166 > Same here and I some what regret it, but I also regret being silent and
167 > going away for years. Since that did not make things better.
168
169 You're entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't make it the truth.
170
171 >> On the other hand, it is really easy to
172 >> point out that a bunch of people aren't getting a job done that
173 >> historically nobody ever was able to completely keep up with.
174 >
175 > Not true, we were getting allot done in the first half of 2008, which I
176 > was in part helping to drive. In fact quite possibly did more then than
177 > has happened since, and/or prior to then. Just takes someone who wants
178 > to see things get done ASAP and puts their time where their mouth is,
179 > just as I did before :)
180
181 From this whole thread, I also have no doubt about how great you are and
182 how everyone else "sucks".
183
184 >> I think our trustees have earned their $0 paycheck
185 >
186 > FYI I removed provisions in the bylaws that allowed trustees to pay
187 > themselves :)
188
189 Curiously, you were the one trying to promote a change in the bylaws so
190 that the Foundation could pay to developers. It took much resistance from
191 the rest of the community for you to drop that idea.
192
193
194 ---
195 Regards,
196
197 Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
198 Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-nfp] List of items to be addressed by audit "William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt@××××××××××××××××.com>