1 |
On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 10:56:16 -0500 |
2 |
"William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@××××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Wednesday, January 11, 2017 3:46:34 PM EST Michał Górny wrote: |
5 |
> > |
6 |
> > 1. I do not mind encouraging more developers to join the Foundation, or |
7 |
> > even making it opt-out. However, I do oppose discriminating developers |
8 |
> > who decide not to join the Foundation. |
9 |
> |
10 |
> There should not be any discrimination. Just an understanding by opting out |
11 |
> you give up your voice/vote. |
12 |
|
13 |
And how is that not discriminating? On one hand you talk of giving |
14 |
people outside the project the means to influence it, yet you |
15 |
explicitly take away the right of voting for people outside |
16 |
the Foundation (even though they are in the project, after all). |
17 |
|
18 |
> |
19 |
> > 2. I agree on having a single pool of voters. However, I believe those |
20 |
> > should be limited to active Gentoo developers, independently of |
21 |
> > Foundation membership. |
22 |
> |
23 |
> If one pool, not sure you can opt out of Foundation. Since that means you |
24 |
> cannot vote for Foundation, then you may no be able to vote for Council. |
25 |
> |
26 |
> Plus may be contestable to merge beyond the voting issue. Easier to not merge |
27 |
> and leave as is now. |
28 |
> |
29 |
> Also most projects give means for people outside to be part of the project. |
30 |
> Non-contributing members. Why should members of the community not have any |
31 |
> say? It is just a vote. The Trustees would have to present to Council and |
32 |
> those two bodies decide if it is best for Gentoo. |
33 |
> |
34 |
> Only reason to not give the community any representation is to say we do not |
35 |
> care what you think, you have no say in Gentoo. Only those with a vested |
36 |
> interest have a say. It is one way to go but not a very open way IMHO. |
37 |
> |
38 |
> Gentoo should welcome everyone's input. Some may have technical contributions, |
39 |
> others documentation. Maybe some have good ideas for Gentoo. |
40 |
|
41 |
I'm not sure if you've seen that but Gentoo developers lately have been |
42 |
harassed by multiple users who had no to minor contributions yet |
43 |
believed they are the best people to tell developers how do their work. |
44 |
|
45 |
Accepting input is one thing. Letting people who do not do current |
46 |
Gentoo work (= aren't affected by the decisions directly) decide on |
47 |
what others should do is another. |
48 |
|
49 |
How can a user who has barely any contact with Gentoo developers be |
50 |
able to choose good candidates for the Council? |
51 |
|
52 |
> > First of all, I'd like to point out how I see the 'problem' of many |
53 |
> > developers not being part of the Foundation. I think that in most |
54 |
> > cases, it's just a matter of 'simplicity': why would I bother joining |
55 |
> > Gentoo Foundation if it does not affect my Gentoo work? |
56 |
> |
57 |
> Because you care about Gentoo. You care to see your work protected and not |
58 |
> another taking credit and profiting from your work. |
59 |
> |
60 |
> Without a Foundation per se, someone could take your work, say it was there |
61 |
> own. Potentially selling such and making a profit. The Foundation is there to |
62 |
> protect you, your work/contributions, etc. |
63 |
> |
64 |
> Also to make sure you are not sued personally for your work. Though most FOSS |
65 |
> software has disclaimer for such. By contributing to Gentoo per se, Gentoo |
66 |
> takes that liability from you. |
67 |
> |
68 |
> > I think that many Gentoo developers, especially foreigners, have |
69 |
> > serious doubts about implications of being a Foundation member. Even if |
70 |
> > elaborate US lawyers can claim otherwise, we're talking about local law |
71 |
> > here, and for example I had enough of the law without having to wonder |
72 |
> > about the implications of formal foreign non-profit corporation |
73 |
> > membership. |
74 |
> |
75 |
> If you had a legal issue around FOSS who would you turn to? Does the EFF or |
76 |
> SLFC have an entity in your country? This is a problem any project would face. |
77 |
|
78 |
I don't see how either of those arguments are related to me being |
79 |
a Foundation member or not. After all, the Foundation protects *all* |
80 |
Gentoo work, independently of whether a developer doing it is a member |
81 |
or not, doesn't it? |
82 |
|
83 |
> > As long as there is no lawful reason to require |
84 |
> > anyone to be a Foundation member to do X, I don't think we should |
85 |
> > enforce that. And unless I'm mistaken, not even Trustees are legally |
86 |
> > |
87 |
> > required to be members of the Foundation (modulo current Bylaws): |
88 |
> > | Directors need not be residents of New Mexico or members of |
89 |
> > | the corporation unless the articles of incorporation or the bylaws |
90 |
> > | so require. |
91 |
> > |
92 |
> > http://www.sos.state.nm.us/uploads/files/Corporations/ch53Art8.pdf |
93 |
> |
94 |
> That would mean if a Developer who opted out of Foundation membership could |
95 |
> still run and be elected as a Trustee. Which would likely give them |
96 |
> membership, opt them back in. |
97 |
|
98 |
I don't see a strict reason to do that, nor I see a strict reason not |
99 |
to do that. Just pointing out that lawfully membership could be |
100 |
considered fully irrelevant. |
101 |
|
102 |
> > Single pool of voters |
103 |
> > ===================== |
104 |
> > |
105 |
> > I agree that having two disjoint pools of voters for two important |
106 |
> > boards running Gentoo might be bad. However, following the point made |
107 |
> > above I don't think that Foundation membership should be relevant to |
108 |
> > the ability to vote. |
109 |
> > |
110 |
> > Therefore, I think it would be best if both the Council and Trustees |
111 |
> > were elected by active Gentoo developers, in a manner consistent with |
112 |
> > how Council is elected nowadays. |
113 |
> |
114 |
> It could be best, but could also result in a insiders only club. |
115 |
|
116 |
Excuse me but how is the Foundation membership different? Foundation |
117 |
members still have to be approved by Trustees. |
118 |
|
119 |
> > This removes the current Foundation members who are not developers from |
120 |
> > the voter pool. I'm sorry but I believe it's more appropriate that |
121 |
> > people who actively develop Gentoo (and have proven to understand its |
122 |
> > the organizational structure via passing the quizzes) get a vote |
123 |
> > in deciding how Gentoo is run. |
124 |
> |
125 |
> I think it is a big mistake to limit things to Developers only. I am not |
126 |
> aware of any Developers with say a legal background. What if members of the |
127 |
> community do? Should they really be excluded? |
128 |
> |
129 |
> Developers do not always know best, and are not versed in all fields. This is a |
130 |
> close minded approach to only allowing a voice from within. Also what does it |
131 |
> say to the community? |
132 |
> |
133 |
> There could be users of Gentoo who have more experience than new developers. |
134 |
> Their experience or patronage matters not? Who cares what you develop if no |
135 |
> one uses it, it does not really matter does it? |
136 |
|
137 |
They can get recruited. It's not hard. Getting a developer status |
138 |
(without commit access) mostly involves proving that you're accustomed |
139 |
to organization matters of how Gentoo operates. |
140 |
|
141 |
Do you really think Gentoo users should start telling developers how |
142 |
Gentoo should be operating without learning how it's operating right |
143 |
now first? |
144 |
|
145 |
> > While I believe it's important to remember the history of Gentoo |
146 |
> > and acknowledge past contributions to it, I don't think that solely |
147 |
> > past contributions should imply the ability to decide (however |
148 |
> > indirectly) how Gentoo is run nowadays. |
149 |
> |
150 |
> A day will come when you may not contribute anymore. Does that mean all your |
151 |
> past contributions immediately become worthless? Does that mean your |
152 |
> experience in the project did not result in any wisdom you could share with |
153 |
> others? |
154 |
|
155 |
No. But it means that I'm no longer in position to tell others what to |
156 |
do, or vote who the best candidate for Council/Trustee/etc. is. |
157 |
|
158 |
I don't mind past contributors having advisory roles for Gentoo. I do |
159 |
mind having them vote on people when they no longer are interested in |
160 |
directly participating in the complete developer community. |
161 |
|
162 |
> > Council, on the other hand, focuses on technical (and quasi-social) |
163 |
> > matters. It's important for Council members to be capable of good |
164 |
> > judgment both on technical and community matters, and being able to |
165 |
> > provide resolutions that are beneficial to the community. The location |
166 |
> > is pretty much irrelevant here, and the role could be considered |
167 |
> > informal by many. |
168 |
> |
169 |
> Council also needs to work with Trustees to ensure such is not taking on legal |
170 |
> liability. |
171 |
|
172 |
I believe the legal liability concern is a rare enough issue for |
173 |
Trustees to be involved rather when that is a possible case rather than |
174 |
having them approve every step of everyone else. |
175 |
|
176 |
> > I have yet to see the final proposal to throw my vote but I already |
177 |
> > start to dislike the direction it is heading towards. With no good |
178 |
> > rationale, and no good problem statement it seems like a change for |
179 |
> > the sake of changing things and/or replacing people. |
180 |
> |
181 |
> Keep something in mind. Trustees could, not saying they would, change legal |
182 |
> and structure aspects of Gentoo with no opposition. If you were not happy, if |
183 |
> you are not a member of the Foundation as it stands now. You could do nothing |
184 |
> legally, Nor could the council or anyone. |
185 |
> |
186 |
> Acting like the Foundation is just a steward is a misnomer. It is good the |
187 |
> Trustees are seeking feedback and approval but they are not legally required |
188 |
> to do such. Once elected they do have legal authority to enact their will. |
189 |
|
190 |
Yes, I know that they can. And they also know that by doing this they |
191 |
are going to lose many useful contributors. Gentoo can't exist without |
192 |
people doing the work, even if the common mailing list complainers |
193 |
finally get what they wanted and are satisfied. |
194 |
|
195 |
It's not perfect but I believe Gentoo could prevail. Maybe it'd even be |
196 |
beneficial long-term, since it would let the developers actually doing |
197 |
a lot of work to split from those who mostly talk. Pretty much getting |
198 |
Gentoo back to the roots, as Daniel Robbins seen it. |
199 |
|
200 |
Of course, there's the trademark issue. It could end up in the 'FFmpeg |
201 |
fiasco' where actual development would continue in a separate entity, |
202 |
and Gentoo Foundation would just 'steal' their work and publish it as |
203 |
the official Gentoo. |
204 |
|
205 |
-- |
206 |
Best regards, |
207 |
Michał Górny |
208 |
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/> |