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

[Matthew Thode]

On 18-04-10 23:05:09, Michał Górny wrote:
> W dniu wto, 10.04.2018 o godzinie 15∶58 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
> napisał:
> > On 18-04-10 22:50:32, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > W dniu wto, 10.04.2018 o godzinie 14∶56 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
> > > napisał:
> > > > On 18-04-10 21:54:57, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > > W dniu wto, 10.04.2018 o godzinie 14∶47 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
> > > > > napisał:
> > > > > > On 18-04-10 21:41:47, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > > > > W dniu wto, 10.04.2018 o godzinie 14∶39 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
> > > > > > > napisał:
> > > > > > > > On 18-04-10 21:23:26, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > > > > > > W dniu wto, 10.04.2018 o godzinie 12∶47 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
> > > > > > > > > napisał:
> > > > > > > > > > On 18-04-10 19:28:11, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > W dniu pon, 09.04.2018 o godzinie 12∶50 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
> > > > > > > > > > > napisał:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 18-04-09 18:57:27, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > But let's get to the details.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Your proposal -- once again -- makes Trustees the highest-level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > governing body of Gentoo and reduces Council to technical matters.  This
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is against GLEP 39 which clearly states that Council is responsible for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > all global decisions and as far as I'm aware is the most recent policy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > defining the role of Council.  Unless you have a strong reason to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > believe that this policy has been illegally forced upon Gentoo, you are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > not 'formalizing' anything but attempting to change well-established
> > > > > > > > > > > > > metastructure and outright lying to the community that the current state
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is undefined.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that Trustees can't be the highest governing body of Gentoo
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for a number of reasons. I will enumerate those I can think of below:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > GLEP 39 is not legally binding.  This proposal would make glep 39 need
> > > > > > > > > > > > changes (mainly that there would be a governing body above council).  At
> > > > > > > > > > > > that point glep 39 could possibly be made into a bylaw.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Are you saying that Trustees do not have to respect the result of vote
> > > > > > > > > > > done among all Gentoo developers?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The trustees are beholden to those that elected them, namely the
> > > > > > > > > > foundation membership, while many of them are developers, some are not.
> > > > > > > > > > So, no, we do not have to respect a result of those that are not our
> > > > > > > > > > members.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What is your claim, exactly?  Are you saying that back in 2005
> > > > > > > > > the Foundation members and developers were disjoint the way they are
> > > > > > > > > today?  Or are you claiming that Trustees don't have to respect old
> > > > > > > > > rules because they have accepted additional non-developer members
> > > > > > > > > afterwards?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > According to LDAP, you have joined Gentoo in 2011.  GLEP 39 was
> > > > > > > > > effective already back then, and unless your recruitment was much
> > > > > > > > > different from mine (2010), you should've been taught about it.  So why
> > > > > > > > > the sudden surprise about it?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The Trustees are responsible to those that elected them (Foundation
> > > > > > > > members).
> > > > > > > > I as a Gentoo Developer should respect GLEP 39.
> > > > > > > > I as a Gentoo Trustee do not need to respect GLEP 39.
> > > > > > > > These are different roles.  I think selinux did role based behavior well.
> > > > > > > > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/SELinux/Role-based_access_control
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Does that mean that I as Gentoo Developer does not have to respect
> > > > > > > the decisions made by Trustees?  In that case I suppose all we have to
> > > > > > > do is leave the Foundation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You are still using the Gentoo name working on foundation owned
> > > > > > resources.  You as a developer need to respect the Trustees in that
> > > > > > respect.  The council needs to respect the foundation for legal /
> > > > > > monetary reasons.  If the Trustees/Foundation makes a decision
> > > > > > regarding what it owns it needs to be obeyed (as long as it's legal of
> > > > > > course).  I'm probably missing something here though.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ...and at the same time Foundation receives money from users who are
> > > > > using Gentoo not because of what the Trustees do but because of the work
> > > > > *developers* put into the distribution.  So why do the Trustees not have
> > > > > to respect the developers?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I want to make sure I answer the question you are actually asking, what
> > > > do you mean by respect?
> > > >
> > >
> > > You have said that as a developer I have to respect rules set by
> > > Trustees since I use the resources they are providing.  Therefore, I am
> > > asking why Trustees do not feel that it would be appropriate to respect
> > > the rules approved by the developer community since they are explicitly
> > > relying on the work of the developers.
> > >
> >
> > The rules we obey are the bylaws.  Both members and Trustees can set
> > them.  https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Bylaws#Article_X_Amendment
> > I think I said earlier that I (personally at least) take GLEPs under
> > heavy advisement in my Trustee role, but I can't obey them carte
> > blanche.  In particular, GLEP 39 would mean that the council is the
> > greater power even in legal matters (GLEP 39 is not limited in scope).
> >
>
> Council making decisions on all global matters, including legal
> and financial would certainly solve the 'two-headed beast' problem that
> keeps coming up.  However, I wouldn't consider it 'greater power'.
> Given their legal power, Trustees still sit on top with override power.
>

That's not my interpretation of it.  Guess this is where we agree to
disagree (unless someone pops up with more evidence backed claims).

-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)