| 1 |
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 5:52 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. |
| 2 |
<wlt-ml@××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Comrel could do something that causes legal action on the Foundation the |
| 5 |
> Trustees would have to deal with. Same with regard to the Council. The |
| 6 |
> foundation can do NOTHING to prevent either. The Foundation has no control or |
| 7 |
> influence over Comrel or Recruiting. Yet they oversee the community it is |
| 8 |
> legally responsible for. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I'm not sure why Comrel or the Council would want to take an action |
| 12 |
that could cause legal problems for the Foundation, or why the |
| 13 |
Trustees would be any less likely to do the same. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I do prefer some kind of consolidated structure, but before that could |
| 16 |
happen there are a lot of issues that need to be resolved: |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
1. How do we reconcile the differing membership of the developer and |
| 19 |
Foundation communities? |
| 20 |
2. If only one body is ultimately in charge, what kinds of qualities |
| 21 |
do we want in its leadership? Ultimately they'd have authority over |
| 22 |
both technical and financial concerns (in reality, no matter what you |
| 23 |
put on paper). Does it make more sense to elect a financial board and |
| 24 |
have them have oversight over the technical side? Or does it make |
| 25 |
sense to have a technical board, and have them have oversight of the |
| 26 |
financial side? Or do we go for both in one (which means finding |
| 27 |
people who are both competent and interested in dealing with both)? I |
| 28 |
think the reality is that you need both in one to some degree, since |
| 29 |
all issues would ultimately fall on them. |
| 30 |
3. How should the organization be structured internationally? |
| 31 |
Ultimately there is one distro and when it comes to technical matters |
| 32 |
I think there is not a lot of regional variation. However, when it |
| 33 |
comes to legal issues I could more easily see regional issues arising. |
| 34 |
We've already had some logistical challenges when there are a lot of |
| 35 |
non-US-residents involved in the Foundation, since while they're |
| 36 |
completely welcome as far as the community is concerned, it makes it |
| 37 |
harder when banks/governments/businesses are asking for tax IDs and |
| 38 |
domestic addresses such. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
> It is a perverted structure no other projects have such a structure. Which is |
| 41 |
> why others rise as Gentoo falls. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
This is a non-sequitur. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
While I do think that some kind of reform might be beneficial, I don't |
| 46 |
really see it having any significant impact on where Gentoo stands in |
| 47 |
the "marketplace" of distros. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
I think the reality is that Gentoo works better for me today than it |
| 50 |
ever has in the past. I'm certainly willing to acknowledge that there |
| 51 |
are some niches where this is not the case (like Java), but I don't |
| 52 |
really have your sense of doom. I don't think it is likely that a |
| 53 |
distro like Gentoo will ever compete with the likes of Ubuntu (which |
| 54 |
has taken over most of the casual side of the Linux space which used |
| 55 |
to be split more with projects like Debian, creating more of a path |
| 56 |
into the more exotic distros like Gentoo). I don't really have a |
| 57 |
problem with that either, since if somebody has a problem that can be |
| 58 |
solved with Ubuntu, then they might as well solve it with Ubuntu and |
| 59 |
not worry about the details unless they really want to. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
-- |
| 62 |
Rich |
Archives