Re: [gentoo-nfp] Questions For Gentoo Foundation Trustee Candidates

[Alec Warner]

On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 10:51 AM Aaron Bauman <bman@g.o> wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 10:04:28AM -0700, Alec Warner wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 7:40 AM Aaron Bauman <bman@g.o> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 07:52:53AM -0700, Alec Warner wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > >
> > > Can you explain why you ran for election on the platform of dissolving
> the
> > > foundation, in favor of an umbrella, but have not conducted any
> research
> > > into
> > > what is required to do so? Presented any definitive options, figures,
> > > impacts,
> > > etc to the electorate?
> > >
> >
> > The electorate doesn't care about the details of the foundation. Of the
> > 80-odd members, ~30 of them will vote.
> > There are 4 people running and 3 seats, so it doesn't take much to get
> > elected (as noted earlier in the thread.)
> >
>
> So, you have conducted a poll to back that statement?
>

I haven not conducted a poll, no.


>
> What if the reasoning of non-interest was simply not to be involved in the
> mess
> that is the tax filings?
>

Then I'd be wrong.


>
> > I'm happy to share a proposal at a later date.
> >
>
> You said a year ago that you wanted to dissolve. So, why hasn't a proposal
> been
> brought in a year?
>

I spent the majority of last year working on the RFP and finding a CPA. One
has been found. It seemed too early to propose articles of dissolution
without financial advise on how to wind down (which we now have.)


>
> > >
> > > Is this why you voluntarily put yourself up for re-election during the
> > > current
> > > cycle?
> > >
> >
> > I'm not sure what 'this' is referring to, but I agreed with Robin's
> premise
> > which was that if Robin and I stepped aside mid-term it would free up
> more
> > seats and we might have a more vigorous election (as opposed to the
> usual,
> > which is we win by running unopposed.) I also bought into his argument
> that
> > it would be a great opportunity to sweep the board. Three open seats
> meant
> > that if a faction of Gentoo wanted to take control of the Foundation they
> > simply needed to find and elect three people and those people would have
> a
> > board majority.
> >
>
> It refers to the previous statement of not having produced a proposal to
> dissolve into an umbrella.
>
> > The outcome was 4 candidates for 3 seats, so we get to have an election
> > (good!) but still pretty minimal participation from the community :/
> >
> > >
> > > > - The members themselves don't hold anyone accountable. Basically
> this
> > > > follows the last piece of the first bullet; that the board can
> basically
> > > be
> > > > bad at their job and keep their seats trivially. The members are
> supposed
> > > > to care about the board's mission (to support Gentoo!) but in fact
> most
> > > > members do nothing and vote once a year when asked (like now!) I
> suspect
> > > if
> > > > a potato was put on the ballot the members would vote for that as a
> > > trustee
> > > > if it filled a seat; because they don't care about the foundation
> working
> > > > correctly or not provided it continues to fund Infra (nominally one
> of
> > > two
> > > > useful things the Foundation actually does.)
> > > >
> > >
> > > This can be fixed by proper by-laws, but the board has failed to adopt
> any
> > > reasonable by-laws to make forward progress.  Also, I think a bit of
> > > transparency from the board would result in our sister nations
> > > understanding why
> > > by-laws and Articles of Incorporation are important.
> > >
> > > Many understand the significance of a GLEP, but do not neccasarily
> > > understand
> > > the importance/role of by-laws and AoI.
> > >
> > > Additionally, I do believe members and devs know the Foundation "holds
> the
> > > purse" as they have seen from the purchase of the Nitrokeys to support
> > > their
> > > mission.
> > >
> > > > - The scope of work done by the Foundation during it's 15 years is
> > > minimal
> > > > (trademark defense and funding) and I believe an umbrella
> organization
> > > can
> > > > do both. I concede it limits future options (because once we give
> assets
> > > to
> > > > the umbrella they can only do what is in any agreement we sign.)
> However,
> > > > its a risk I'm willing to take given the poor performance of the
> > > Foundation
> > > > in the past (and the anticipated poor performance in the future; see
> > > first
> > > > two points.)
> > > >
> > > > -A
> > > >
> > >
> > > c.f my statement above and consider the performance during this cycle.
> > >
> > > Overall, each individual has simply pointed out the financial failures
> of
> > > the
> > > foundation... which I agree with.  However, dissolution has many more
> > > potential ramifications than benefits.
> > >
> > > The majority of failures can simply be fixed by retaining a CPA.
> > >
> >
> > If I was convinced we had the support of the community and a board to run
> > the Foundation for the next 10 years (retaining a CPA, doing other
> required
> > duties) I'd not dissolve the Foundation at all. However, I'm not
> convinced
> > of that. You might ask "what would it take to convince me" and the answer
> > is likely more community participation in board matters, elections, etc.
> > You are one human; but it will take more than one to do this job.
> >
> >
>
> Seems we have more participation now, as you stated.
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Roy Bamford
> > > > > (Neddyseagoon) a member of
> > > > > elections
> > > > > gentoo-ops
> > > > > forum-mods
> > > > > arm64
> > >
> > > --
> > > Cheers,
> > > Aaron
> > >
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Aaron
>