1 |
On Wednesday, January 11, 2017 3:46:34 PM EST Michał Górny wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> 1. I do not mind encouraging more developers to join the Foundation, or |
4 |
> even making it opt-out. However, I do oppose discriminating developers |
5 |
> who decide not to join the Foundation. |
6 |
|
7 |
There should not be any discrimination. Just an understanding by opting out |
8 |
you give up your voice/vote. |
9 |
|
10 |
> 2. I agree on having a single pool of voters. However, I believe those |
11 |
> should be limited to active Gentoo developers, independently of |
12 |
> Foundation membership. |
13 |
|
14 |
If one pool, not sure you can opt out of Foundation. Since that means you |
15 |
cannot vote for Foundation, then you may no be able to vote for Council. |
16 |
|
17 |
Plus may be contestable to merge beyond the voting issue. Easier to not merge |
18 |
and leave as is now. |
19 |
|
20 |
Also most projects give means for people outside to be part of the project. |
21 |
Non-contributing members. Why should members of the community not have any |
22 |
say? It is just a vote. The Trustees would have to present to Council and |
23 |
those two bodies decide if it is best for Gentoo. |
24 |
|
25 |
Only reason to not give the community any representation is to say we do not |
26 |
care what you think, you have no say in Gentoo. Only those with a vested |
27 |
interest have a say. It is one way to go but not a very open way IMHO. |
28 |
|
29 |
Gentoo should welcome everyone's input. Some may have technical contributions, |
30 |
others documentation. Maybe some have good ideas for Gentoo. |
31 |
|
32 |
> 3. I don't think merging the Council and Trustees is a good idea. |
33 |
> The two projects have divergent goals and different qualities expected |
34 |
> from members. |
35 |
|
36 |
Yes, do not merge, but provide means for them to work together for the benefit |
37 |
of all, and Gentoo over all. |
38 |
|
39 |
> First of all, I'd like to point out how I see the 'problem' of many |
40 |
> developers not being part of the Foundation. I think that in most |
41 |
> cases, it's just a matter of 'simplicity': why would I bother joining |
42 |
> Gentoo Foundation if it does not affect my Gentoo work? |
43 |
|
44 |
Because you care about Gentoo. You care to see your work protected and not |
45 |
another taking credit and profiting from your work. |
46 |
|
47 |
Without a Foundation per se, someone could take your work, say it was there |
48 |
own. Potentially selling such and making a profit. The Foundation is there to |
49 |
protect you, your work/contributions, etc. |
50 |
|
51 |
Also to make sure you are not sued personally for your work. Though most FOSS |
52 |
software has disclaimer for such. By contributing to Gentoo per se, Gentoo |
53 |
takes that liability from you. |
54 |
|
55 |
> I think that many Gentoo developers, especially foreigners, have |
56 |
> serious doubts about implications of being a Foundation member. Even if |
57 |
> elaborate US lawyers can claim otherwise, we're talking about local law |
58 |
> here, and for example I had enough of the law without having to wonder |
59 |
> about the implications of formal foreign non-profit corporation |
60 |
> membership. |
61 |
|
62 |
If you had a legal issue around FOSS who would you turn to? Does the EFF or |
63 |
SLFC have an entity in your country? This is a problem any project would face. |
64 |
|
65 |
> So if anyone thinks that developers not being Foundation members are |
66 |
> a problem, then I think it's best solved by spreading more information |
67 |
> about the Foundation and encouragement, not attempting to force people |
68 |
> in. |
69 |
|
70 |
If the Foundation does more for Gentoo and there is benefit to Gentoo |
71 |
Developers. They may look to participate on their own as they would be |
72 |
motivated to join. |
73 |
|
74 |
This is one of the problems, with the Foundation being seen as separate with |
75 |
"boring" duties and mission. Very few over many years have ever taken interest |
76 |
in Foundation matters. The less the Foundation does, the more it will be |
77 |
irrelevant to most. The more the Foundation is active, the more it will |
78 |
attract interest. |
79 |
|
80 |
> If you believe that it is legally safe for any foreigner to be |
81 |
> a Foundation member, then I think it'd be reasonable for recruiters (or |
82 |
> mentors) to propose that to new developers, and support their effort in |
83 |
> joining. |
84 |
|
85 |
If they can legally be a developer, they should be able to legally be a |
86 |
member. Recruiters should be providing more support all around IMHO. |
87 |
Which present recruiters may be doing now, a comment from past interactions. |
88 |
|
89 |
> However, I oppose making it obligatory or giving special privileges to |
90 |
> Foundation members. |
91 |
|
92 |
There would likely never be special privileges. Just a vote. |
93 |
|
94 |
> As long as there is no lawful reason to require |
95 |
> anyone to be a Foundation member to do X, I don't think we should |
96 |
> enforce that. And unless I'm mistaken, not even Trustees are legally |
97 |
> |
98 |
> required to be members of the Foundation (modulo current Bylaws): |
99 |
> | Directors need not be residents of New Mexico or members of |
100 |
> | the corporation unless the articles of incorporation or the bylaws |
101 |
> | so require. |
102 |
> |
103 |
> http://www.sos.state.nm.us/uploads/files/Corporations/ch53Art8.pdf |
104 |
|
105 |
That would mean if a Developer who opted out of Foundation membership could |
106 |
still run and be elected as a Trustee. Which would likely give them |
107 |
membership, opt them back in. |
108 |
|
109 |
> |
110 |
> Single pool of voters |
111 |
> ===================== |
112 |
> |
113 |
> I agree that having two disjoint pools of voters for two important |
114 |
> boards running Gentoo might be bad. However, following the point made |
115 |
> above I don't think that Foundation membership should be relevant to |
116 |
> the ability to vote. |
117 |
> |
118 |
> Therefore, I think it would be best if both the Council and Trustees |
119 |
> were elected by active Gentoo developers, in a manner consistent with |
120 |
> how Council is elected nowadays. |
121 |
|
122 |
It could be best, but could also result in a insiders only club. |
123 |
|
124 |
> This removes the current Foundation members who are not developers from |
125 |
> the voter pool. I'm sorry but I believe it's more appropriate that |
126 |
> people who actively develop Gentoo (and have proven to understand its |
127 |
> the organizational structure via passing the quizzes) get a vote |
128 |
> in deciding how Gentoo is run. |
129 |
|
130 |
I think it is a big mistake to limit things to Developers only. I am not |
131 |
aware of any Developers with say a legal background. What if members of the |
132 |
community do? Should they really be excluded? |
133 |
|
134 |
Developers do not always know best, and are not versed in all fields. This is a |
135 |
close minded approach to only allowing a voice from within. Also what does it |
136 |
say to the community? |
137 |
|
138 |
There could be users of Gentoo who have more experience than new developers. |
139 |
Their experience or patronage matters not? Who cares what you develop if no |
140 |
one uses it, it does not really matter does it? |
141 |
|
142 |
> While I believe it's important to remember the history of Gentoo |
143 |
> and acknowledge past contributions to it, I don't think that solely |
144 |
> past contributions should imply the ability to decide (however |
145 |
> indirectly) how Gentoo is run nowadays. |
146 |
|
147 |
A day will come when you may not contribute anymore. Does that mean all your |
148 |
past contributions immediately become worthless? Does that mean your |
149 |
experience in the project did not result in any wisdom you could share with |
150 |
others? |
151 |
|
152 |
> |
153 |
> Merged Council and Trustees |
154 |
> =========================== |
155 |
> |
156 |
> I find this one a really bad idea. I believe that both of these boards |
157 |
> have different goals and therefore require different qualities from |
158 |
> people forming them. |
159 |
|
160 |
I agree, do not merge, just have them work together but separate agendas and |
161 |
duties. |
162 |
|
163 |
> As I see it, Trustees focus on legal and financial matters, |
164 |
> and therefore it is important that they have good knowledge of laws |
165 |
> applying to the Foundation and/or accounting. It is likely beneficial |
166 |
> for a Trustee to be a resident of the USA, and (as has been pointed |
167 |
> out) probably not everyone is legally entitled to be one. |
168 |
|
169 |
The President and several have resided outside the US. I think its more a |
170 |
requirement for Officers than Trustees to be in the US. |
171 |
|
172 |
> Council, on the other hand, focuses on technical (and quasi-social) |
173 |
> matters. It's important for Council members to be capable of good |
174 |
> judgment both on technical and community matters, and being able to |
175 |
> provide resolutions that are beneficial to the community. The location |
176 |
> is pretty much irrelevant here, and the role could be considered |
177 |
> informal by many. |
178 |
|
179 |
Council also needs to work with Trustees to ensure such is not taking on legal |
180 |
liability. |
181 |
|
182 |
> Now, merging the two institutions would create a board that has a wider |
183 |
> range of responsibilities, and require all of these qualities together. |
184 |
> I'm not convinced this will work for us. |
185 |
|
186 |
It would not and would be bad. Plus a much bigger change and be much more |
187 |
contestable with many more issues. |
188 |
|
189 |
> Summary |
190 |
> ======= |
191 |
> |
192 |
> To be honest, I don't really know what problem is being solved here. |
193 |
> The only problem I've been able to notice so far was the possible |
194 |
> disagreement between the voter pool for the Council and Trustees which |
195 |
> I think we can merge without any drastic measures. |
196 |
|
197 |
Most do not understand the problems, the liability issues, or how |
198 |
organizations are organized. This is some what a result of the over all issue. |
199 |
It is a strange structure that leads to confusion. It does not lead to |
200 |
Trustees and Council working together on matters. |
201 |
|
202 |
> However, I disagree that merging the pools would result in Council |
203 |
> and Trustees getting implicitly merged. They would still have |
204 |
> different areas of responsibility and required qualities, and therefore |
205 |
> the developers are still likely to find different people appropriate. |
206 |
> |
207 |
> That said, I don't have an opinion on disallowing a single person from |
208 |
> being on both boards. I don't think it's strictly necessary for any |
209 |
> body in Gentoo as long as the relevant person is going to respectfully |
210 |
> withdraw his vote when a potential conflict of interest arises. |
211 |
|
212 |
There is issue with someone being on both Trustees and Council. For reasons of |
213 |
liability and other. I was a big proponent of provisions in the by laws to not |
214 |
allow such. I would strongly oppose it. |
215 |
|
216 |
If for no other reason than someone wearing to hats for top level entities |
217 |
will end up neglecting one if they are short on time. Neither Council nor |
218 |
Trustees should ever be neglected. Therefore someone should never be on both. |
219 |
You are splitting your time and focus and that should not happen. |
220 |
|
221 |
> I have yet to see the final proposal to throw my vote but I already |
222 |
> start to dislike the direction it is heading towards. With no good |
223 |
> rationale, and no good problem statement it seems like a change for |
224 |
> the sake of changing things and/or replacing people. |
225 |
|
226 |
Keep something in mind. Trustees could, not saying they would, change legal |
227 |
and structure aspects of Gentoo with no opposition. If you were not happy, if |
228 |
you are not a member of the Foundation as it stands now. You could do nothing |
229 |
legally, Nor could the council or anyone. |
230 |
|
231 |
Acting like the Foundation is just a steward is a misnomer. It is good the |
232 |
Trustees are seeking feedback and approval but they are not legally required |
233 |
to do such. Once elected they do have legal authority to enact their will. |
234 |
|
235 |
Thus it is really in everyone's best interest to take part in the Foundation. |
236 |
Help unify and correct this logical separation. Get the two entities working |
237 |
together and Gentoo moving along :) |
238 |
|
239 |
-- |
240 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |