1 |
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> The Gentoo council has no legal standing whatsoever, which I have |
3 |
> already said (at FOSEDEM) makes me a little nervous as a trustee, since |
4 |
> the council makes decisions on behalf of Gentoo that the Foundation |
5 |
> would be held both accountable and responsible for. There have been no |
6 |
> issues with that, yet. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> Maybe its time to reorganise Gentoo along standard corporate lines |
9 |
> again, as it was before drobbins left. If we go in that direction, the |
10 |
> council becomes a technical committee that is part of the Foundation. |
11 |
> GLEP39 is no longer needed and the Foundation bylaws are amended to |
12 |
> reflect the new structure. |
13 |
> |
14 |
|
15 |
So, while that is something that has been talked about, and which I |
16 |
tend to support, I think that it is a BIG change for Gentoo. Even if |
17 |
the intent is to keep the change small from a practical standpoint. |
18 |
|
19 |
I definitely would prefer to avoid updating the Foundation bylaws, at |
20 |
least right now. My concern is that we're still cleaning up the past |
21 |
in terms of tax filings, legal status, etc. I think that good |
22 |
progress is being made, but I'm afraid that trying to reorganize the |
23 |
distro is going to eat up a lot of effort. |
24 |
|
25 |
Even if this weren't an issue I'd probably still avoid |
26 |
over-formalizing the council - since splitting off the trustees was |
27 |
done precisely to avoid that in the first place. The foundation needs |
28 |
to operate in a fairly formal way for legal reasons. We already have |
29 |
difficulty meeting the required level of formality within our current |
30 |
scope of responsibility. I'd be reluctant to apply that same level of |
31 |
rigor to the council. |
32 |
|
33 |
That said, if an issue does legally threaten Gentoo then it is the |
34 |
duty of the trustees to step in if it isn't sorted out quickly. I |
35 |
think that most would already support this, and unless somebody spots |
36 |
something in the bylaws that is unclear I think legally the trustees |
37 |
already have the authority to do so. In the past I think councils |
38 |
have done a good job steering clear of legal landmines, and I do think |
39 |
that if the trustees were to raise a legal concern with a proposed |
40 |
action they would probably respect our role without any need for |
41 |
coercion. Maybe clarifying this in GLEP 39 might not hurt, but I |
42 |
wouldn't send the document out for another vote with only that change. |
43 |
|
44 |
Rich |