Re: [gentoo-project] Social Contract clean-up

[Rich Freeman]

On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Daniel Robbins <drobbins@××××××.org> wrote:
>
> Yes, however, the "business" of Gentoo is to develop software, not to run a
> business. So the analogy is correct. The Council should be focused on the
> business of software development, and the Trustees look out for the
> long-term health of the project, which includes taking care of annoying
> stuff like real business matters.

Then perhaps we should wait until they figure out how to take care of
that annoying stuff like real business matters before we give them
more important matters to do, like care for the Social Contract?

IMO putting the Trustees in some kind of overall position of power is
a mistake, because it neglects the fact that we're a Linux distro
first and foremost, and the fact that we own assets is secondary to
that mission.  If we could do without owning assets we probably would.
If we did away with running a Linux Distro there would be no reason
for the Foundation to even exist.  The role of the Foundation ought to
be minimized as a result, and if it were up to me it would be
dissolved in favor of an umbrella org or some other more-sustainable
approach.

Alas, I'd run for Trustees on that platform, but I have little
interest in the potential legal liability that could bring for me
personally.  I suspect most who agree with me would have similar
concerns.  And so we end up with a Foundation that exists simply
because it was spun up and nobody cares enough to rein it in.
Granted, it is somewhat in the nature of organizations to become more
focused on self-perpetuation than accomplishing their missions,
something that ironically the Council was accused of not long ago.

-- 
Rich