| 1 |
On 26/01/17 15:46, Roy Bamford wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 2017.01.26 15:03, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 3 |
>> [discussion intended at -nfp, CC-ing -project] |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> Hi, |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> I would like to add an additional clause to the Gentoo Social Contract |
| 8 |
>> [1], to guarantee that Gentoo will remain a volunteer-based project |
| 9 |
>> and will not turn into some kind of paid enterprise. The suggested |
| 10 |
>> text |
| 11 |
>> would be: |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> | Gentoo is and will remain independent volunteer work. We will never |
| 14 |
>> | pay anyone to develop Gentoo, nor will we accept any donations given |
| 15 |
>> | on the condition of any particular development. |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
>> Text improvements welcome. |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
> [snip] |
| 20 |
>> [1]:https://www.gentoo.org/get-started/philosophy/social-contract.html |
| 21 |
>> |
| 22 |
>> -- |
| 23 |
>> Best regards, |
| 24 |
>> Michał Górny |
| 25 |
>> <http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/> |
| 26 |
>> |
| 27 |
> Michał, |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> In general, I don't have a problem with this but it needs some fine tuning |
| 30 |
> to permit 'bug bounties' and the like where there is a well defined scope |
| 31 |
> of work which is good value for Gentoo to pay for for the end result. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> The Foundation has paid a bug bounty once that I an aware of. |
| 34 |
> The discussion and vote is in the trustees meetings logs. |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> What about non technical work? |
| 37 |
> We may actually need to pay for legal and or financial advice and |
| 38 |
> the like, where we cannot find pro bono support. |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> If the intent was to rule out paid employees doing what they want and |
| 41 |
> pushing Gentoo wherever they wanted it to go, its not going to happen |
| 42 |
> any time soon. Gentoo cannot afford even a single full time employee. |
| 43 |
> Then there are all the admin overheads associated with employee(s). |
| 44 |
> In any case, paid employees are assigned work. That would be no |
| 45 |
> different in Gentoo. Then maybe we would need paid managers too. |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
Whilst I support Roy's comments above, I do feel that actively |
| 48 |
Preventing Gentoo from hiring people should a need be identified and |
| 49 |
supported and carried by council/trustees/board/<insert authority here> |
| 50 |
is a bad idea. Of course, the premise is that there is an identified |
| 51 |
need, and the body to authorise such expenditure approves and/or can |
| 52 |
justify it (being the "democratically" elected body). I don't suspect, |
| 53 |
resource permitting, there is *any* desire from *anyone* with relevant |
| 54 |
access to funds, to unilaterally "hire" people for the sake of it. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
We seem to be badly obsessed with this principle that the devs (read |
| 57 |
"community") do not have the same aims and objectives as the "council" |
| 58 |
or the "trustees" and they all have their own motives and means. I |
| 59 |
strongly believe that *IF* there are any members or contributors, |
| 60 |
mindful of the Dev quiz questions and answers, who /don't/ believe and |
| 61 |
strive for the key aims of a "Gentoo Mission Statement" should not be |
| 62 |
either influencing or contributing significantly to the Gentoo name or |
| 63 |
cause. We are here to build a linux distribution not to "Rule the |
| 64 |
Roost", "Inflate our Ego" or "Furnish our Resume/CV/etc" "file taxes" |
| 65 |
"carry out specific work for the benefit of any |
| 66 |
individual/organisation/institution" etc, etc etc. Let's actually get |
| 67 |
behind the same, common aim and get on with the work of building and |
| 68 |
maintaining a linux distro and quit the bikeshed about who is pulling |
| 69 |
the ropes this way or that. It's not a tug of war, a competition or |
| 70 |
other sporting event. |
Archives