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

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 8:39 PM, Daniel Robbins <drobbins@××××××.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 6:15 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Wouldn't it make sense to have these assigned to the council?
>>
>> GLEP 39 states that "Global issues will be decided by an elected
>> Gentoo Council."  Surely the social contract is a global issue, and I
>> don't see any exception in GLEP 39 pertaining to the social contract
>> specifically
>
>
> No -- it's a trustee issue. GLEP 39 is not written very well and is not
> explicit in what it means by "global issues", but in context it is pretty
> clear the Council is meant to address project-related problems that bothered
> ciaranm and g2boojum at the time, thus technical problems, and "global
> issues" are technical issues that span multiple projects.

GLEP 39 explicitly states that disciplinary matters are to be appealed
to the council, so clearly it isn't talking merely of technical
issues.

> And if you look at the definition of trustee responsibilities, "Oversee
> Adherence to the Social Contract" is one of them. This includes overseeing
> the Social Contract itself.

This is not part of the bylaws or articles of incorporation, and it
isn't clear who wrote that page, or from where their power was
delegated.  And the wording does not actually say that this includes
overseeing the social contract, but merely its enforcement (though
with any disciplinary actions being appealed to the Council it would
seem subject to that limitation).

In any case, I'll admit that the original definitions of the structure
are a bit murky, but given that the Foundation is struggling just to
straighten out its books wouldn't it make sense to make revisions so
as to minimize the scope of their responsibilities so that they can
try to sustain the functions that we're still stuck with them handling
until a better solution is found?

-- 
Rich