| 1 |
On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 13:16:50 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Andrew Savchenko <bircoph@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > |
| 4 |
> > I'm not sure how Gentoo e.V. and the Foundation are connected; wiki |
| 5 |
> > of the former says "Gentoo e.V. is a partner of the Gentoo |
| 6 |
> > Foundation", though I'm not sure if this is a partnership by |
| 7 |
> > spirit or some legal binding. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > If they are not legally connected maybe it is a good idea to do |
| 10 |
> > this, or may be there are good reasons to keep the status quo. I do |
| 11 |
> > not have a strong opinion here, but it will be interesting to hear |
| 12 |
> > thought of people who understand these matters better than me. |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Right now I don't believe there is any formal legal relationship |
| 16 |
> between them. I used to be a proponent of having one, but I'm not so |
| 17 |
> sure that is a good idea now. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> As soon as you start forming legal relationships you basically start |
| 20 |
> falling under all the US laws that a lot of people see a non-US org as |
| 21 |
> a solution to. For example, if the e.V. wants to financially support |
| 22 |
> volunteers in a country subject to US embargo, the US Foundation |
| 23 |
> probably would run into issues having a legal relationship with the |
| 24 |
> e.V. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> Part of me thinks that it makes more sense to keep the relationships |
| 27 |
> less formal. Maybe have an umbrella project under the Council that |
| 28 |
> coordinates local legal entities, and then the e.V. and the Foundation |
| 29 |
> both fall under that. Legally they'd be standalone institutions, but |
| 30 |
> the distro-centered non-legal project would coordinate their actions. |
| 31 |
> Even if legally the Council couldn't completely dictate their actions, |
| 32 |
> those voting for board members could ensure that the people who are |
| 33 |
> running the various orgs are aligned to the overall strategy. |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> Then if we operate under an umbrella org in a country the liason(s) |
| 36 |
> for that org could also be a part of that distro-centered project |
| 37 |
> under the Council. In the same way we can't dictate all the |
| 38 |
> operations of the umbrella org but the Council could ensure that the |
| 39 |
> representatives working with them are aligned with the whole. |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> So, the structure would look something like: |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> Council |
| 44 |
> - QA |
| 45 |
> - arch teams |
| 46 |
> - KDE team |
| 47 |
> - Comrel |
| 48 |
> - Local Organization team |
| 49 |
> - e.V. |
| 50 |
> - Gentoo Foundation |
| 51 |
> - Umbrella Org 1 |
| 52 |
> |
| 53 |
> (Just a smattering of projects above for illustration - this isn't a |
| 54 |
> change to how the rest of the distro works. The relationship between |
| 55 |
> the various legal bodies and the Council is not legally formalized - |
| 56 |
> they would be accountable to their members which should be aligned to |
| 57 |
> the distro members, and should be controlled in a way to avoid |
| 58 |
> forks/etc.) |
| 59 |
> |
| 60 |
> Just my thoughts on the matter... |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
Thanks, this is indeed a good architecture. Actually we'll have this |
| 63 |
way a container/VM-level separation of legislative risks and |
| 64 |
opportunities while still connected via the same host system to |
| 65 |
achieve the same goals. I really like that :) |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
Best regards, |
| 68 |
Andrew Savchenko |
Archives