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

[Matthew Thode]

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

> >   Even if our members voted for something illegal we likely
> > wouldn't have to respect that either.
>
> Unless you are claiming that GLEP 39 is illegal (sic!), I don't
> understand the purpose of this sentence.
>

GLEP 39 is not illegal, nor is it enforcible.  GLEP 39 is orthogonal to
the Foundation, it does not apply to it.  That sentence is meant to just
mean that the Trustees cannot be forced to do something illegal, even by
a vote.

> > I've asked (recently) and received no reply to a request for a report on
> > comrel actions taken to be done on a monthly basis.  A part of that
> > request was to receive notification immediately upon any indication of
> > legal risk.  The last part of the request was to be have the trustees be
> > CC'd in comrel bugs (this is the big change that needs to be discussed
> > not here, it may not even be necessary if the former two requests are
> > honored).  It'd be nice to receive this report like we do from infra
> > every meeting, see https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Meetings/2018/04#Infra_update
> > Normally this update is  'nothing new', but would probably be slightly
> > more than that for council/comrel.
>
> Individual Trustees have been making multiple disjoint and inconsistent
> demands lately.  Please take care to put some order in your house first,
> and when you are ready to provide a single, consistent, representative
> channel of requests, we will be glad to discuss them.
>

I'd like to implement at least items 1 and 2 from the above list, but we
should move this to another thread so as to not distract from the agenda
item.

-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)