| 1 |
On 01/11/2017 12:07 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 01/11/2017 09:03 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Gentoo is a community-driven project lead by the Council, and we should |
| 4 |
>> keep it that way. I therefore propose we follow the lead of other major |
| 5 |
>> projects[0] and become associated with SPI[1], making use of their |
| 6 |
>> various services[2] such as accepting donations, and holding funds and |
| 7 |
>> other assets. As an associated project, Gentoo would retain its |
| 8 |
>> independence - SPI would not own, govern, or otherwise control us. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> The proposed metastructure will also work with a Foundation being a |
| 11 |
> project under council. Various alternatives could be discussed related |
| 12 |
> to this, and I tend to agree an external entity can be beneficial, in |
| 13 |
> particular given shared resources, but in the event it is not feasible |
| 14 |
> or wanted, the foundation could be structured with bylaws that gives |
| 15 |
> Council mandate to be the voting body and appoint Directors. I |
| 16 |
> personally believe, in such a scenario, that professional help should be |
| 17 |
> brought in for some of the tasks, in particular a certified professional |
| 18 |
> accountant should be used to keep accounts and handle tax reporting. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
In that structure, would Foundation members be given votes equal to |
| 21 |
Gentoo Developers? If not, this is simply an inversion of the other model. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Perhaps the better question is "Do we want to have to care about the |
| 24 |
boring parts?" If we do care, then we should hire someone qualified. If |
| 25 |
we don't, we should leave the non-technical things to whoever and the |
| 26 |
Council can focus on the technical. Naturally, this means the liaison |
| 27 |
must be trustworthy, but we're already banking a lot of trust on the |
| 28 |
existing structure with next to no accountability. Putting someone in a |
| 29 |
position that *does* have legal ramifications will serve well to keep |
| 30 |
Gentoo's practical interests in mind for the liaison. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
As a result, we can focus on things that most of us can influence, like |
| 33 |
RFCs, GLEPs, regular ebuild work, etc. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
My only concern with SPI and its ilk is control over assets. If |
| 36 |
something happens to our agreement, we'd need provisions that ensure we |
| 37 |
keep rights to our mark and infra. Without those, it would severely |
| 38 |
damage us as a distribution and we'd be dead in the water until we |
| 39 |
acquired other infra. Thankfully, the repositories would be safe due to |
| 40 |
Git, but the rest is a big concern imo. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
It certainly isn't a decision we'll be able to make lightly. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
-- |
| 45 |
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer |
| 46 |
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net |
| 47 |
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C 1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6 |
Archives