| 1 |
On Sun, Apr 08, 2018 at 11:42:01PM -0400, Virgil Dupras wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 20:29:27 -0700 |
| 3 |
> zlg <zlg@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > Why should a group -- who holds no legal, social, or practical |
| 6 |
> > responsibility -- be trusted to lead the efforts of an organization? |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Since Gentoo's CoC is strongly based on Debian, maybe we could look at Debian's constitution for clues on this and ask ourselves why it says in section 9 [1]: |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> > An organisation holding assets for Debian has no authority regarding |
| 11 |
> > Debian's technical or nontechnical decisions, except that no decision |
| 12 |
> > by Debian with respect to any property held by the organisation shall |
| 13 |
> > require it to act outside its legal authority. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Maybe that this type of separation of concerns worked well for them? Maybe it can work well for Gentoo? |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Regards, |
| 18 |
> Virgil Dupras |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> [1] https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution#item-9 |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Separating concerns may work, but not without a real, legally binding |
| 24 |
contract that both parties consent to and abide by. Otherwise, the |
| 25 |
Foundation takes on all the legal and financial risk and gets nothing |
| 26 |
for it. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
An affirmation from the two parties is not a binding contract. I would |
| 29 |
support one if it was equitable and enforceable, i.e. not GLEP 39. If |
| 30 |
the relationship is reduced to business, then the Council should offer |
| 31 |
something in return. |
Archives