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 |