Gentoo Archives: gentoo-nfp

From: Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o>
To: "William L. Thomson Jr." <wltjr@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-nfp <gentoo-nfp@l.g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-nfp] Section 4.1 Member Classes
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 01:31:01
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-nfp] Section 4.1 Member Classes by "William L. Thomson Jr."
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> First off this is way OT now. This thread is on a particular section of > the bylaws. We the trustees are trying to review and revise. > > On Fri, 2008-05-23 at 02:36 +0200, Luca Barbato wrote: >>> Representing the community was the foundations intention, but over time. >>> As the foundation was neglected, it seems that was never realized. >> I was around when the foundation got there and even before... > > Then as a foundation member. You are partly responsible for it's failure > year after year. Ever since it was formed. No reporting beyond 2005, > ending with revocation in 2007.
I'm European, the foundation is an US entity. I'm supposed to keep my eyes on it to to have this entity, made just collect founds in the us with ease, accountable? Well I'll try my best, starting from this.
>>>>> Some of our longest contributing members to Gentoo Java, aren't devs, >>>>> nor will they ever be. They don't want to be. Some even have their own >>>>> overlays. So guess they should not have any say or input. >>>> You just told me that their input has been treasured by the java team, >>> Does it mean it was passed on to the council? >> Was it needed? Anything prevented anybody to pass it on? > > Not sure. You would have to ask the community members not me. As I do > not represent or speak for them as a developer.
Since you are the developer listening to them you are supposed to know.
>>> Does it mean that if they want me to do something I do? >> No and that is wonderful. You are free to waste your time in any way you >> like, as long you don't damage the others. The subtle beauty of freedom. > > So who represents them? Who represents the community?
Themselves since they can voice their concern in a large degree of ways and they don't strictly need anybody to represent them?
>>> Does it mean I represent them and their will? >> In which aspect? Their will about gentoo and java? If you value and >> treasure their input as you told me, I think they could consider that >> you are pretty much doing that. > > It's not about that. They might be working on something that doesn't > interest me.
Then they can try to get you interested, become developers themselve and put their time where their mouth is.
>> Not that you aren't threating of adding a large deal of bureaucracy >> right now, is it? > > Look there is a need for organization. The initial wording of the > foundation charter, straight up says the foundation is a result of > increased size.
> I am not a fan of bureaucracy, but I am a fan of structure and > organization. Without you get chaos, and we have that on so many fronts.
We got chaos because some people are too attached to the letter of laws/policy/writtenpaper from my point of view.
>> (c.f the twin email in which you take the letter of a >> glep as a weapon against me apparently) > > Um, did you not see all the emails where I was fighting GLEP 39? You > mentioned the word rules. Which the council is at the top of all. Yet > the council doesn't seem to want to enforce their own rules against > themselves.
Check the council ml.
> Which all developers, the community, trustees, etc are > powerless to do anything about.
We do stuff just because we agree on a set of core values, in disagreement we are free to leave to other and more pleasant endeavors.
> I am not using it against you. But as a council member. You have an > elected duty to serve (´╗┐which I have a duty as well to serve). > That you are not doing now. Any time spent commenting here. Could go to starting > an election. Or following rules and procedures specific to the council. > Or even better, comment on the GLEP 39 issue. Which I do not believe a > single council member has commented on in public. No comments, and no > action toward a council election.
I followed the discussion on -project but I won't comment there, I already gave my opinion on the -council ml.
> It is a NPO organization, 501c6. Inc has nothing to do with the type of > entity. No more than anything else in the name. Incorporation does not > imply profit.
I was referring to Gentoo Technologies inc.
> Based on how it seemed Daniel operated in the past. I don't think he > asked anyone's permission when he resigned and created the foundation. > Thus I would find it surprising for him to poll, and act on majority wrt > to the type of foundation he was to create.
In short, the 6 one was quicker to get, at least that's what I recall.
> In how it functions, and it's mission. Not the type of legal entity it > is.
c.f. the freebsd nfp lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo Council Member Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC -- gentoo-nfp@l.g.o mailing list


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-nfp] Section 4.1 Member Classes "William L. Thomson Jr." <wltjr@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-nfp] Section 4.1 Member Classes "William L. Thomson Jr." <wltjr@g.o>