1 |
On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 12:28:35 -0500 |
2 |
"William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@××××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Wednesday, January 11, 2017 5:50:50 PM EST Michał Górny wrote: |
5 |
> > |
6 |
> > And how is that not discriminating? On one hand you talk of giving |
7 |
> > people outside the project the means to influence it, yet you |
8 |
> > explicitly take away the right of voting for people outside |
9 |
> > the Foundation (even though they are in the project, after all). |
10 |
> |
11 |
> If as a Developer you opt out of Foundation membership. You cannot turn |
12 |
> around and claim discrimination to something you chose to leave. |
13 |
|
14 |
What if I *have* to opt out because of my employment or local law? For |
15 |
example, if my contract forbids me from being *enlisted* |
16 |
in corporations working in the IT sector? |
17 |
|
18 |
It's easy to argue whether things can or can't happen but will you |
19 |
defend me against a lawsuit from my employer? Will the Foundation |
20 |
guarantee that? As I see it, keeping a low profile should be |
21 |
developer's right. |
22 |
|
23 |
> > I'm not sure if you've seen that but Gentoo developers lately have been |
24 |
> > harassed by multiple users who had no to minor contributions yet |
25 |
> > believed they are the best people to tell developers how do their work. |
26 |
> |
27 |
> Which is why they would be better served to voice their opinions to Trustees. |
28 |
> Let Trustees approach council if they feel it is best. If Council feels the |
29 |
> need they could consult Developers. |
30 |
> |
31 |
> > Accepting input is one thing. Letting people who do not do current |
32 |
> > Gentoo work (= aren't affected by the decisions directly) decide on |
33 |
> > what others should do is another. |
34 |
> |
35 |
> Just because Foundation, Council, and Gentoo project want to do something. |
36 |
> Does not mean YOU have to do that. At the same time a project should not be |
37 |
> just left up to those scratching itches. If by some means all that individual |
38 |
> itch scratching leads to something collectively great. |
39 |
> |
40 |
> At some point has to be some big picture to how all the stuff fits together. |
41 |
> Are we a organized team/project or just individuals doing what ever? |
42 |
|
43 |
We are individuals who can get along eventually and make a pretty |
44 |
decent distro as a result. For some time already. |
45 |
|
46 |
> > How can a user who has barely any contact with Gentoo developers be |
47 |
> > able to choose good candidates for the Council? |
48 |
> |
49 |
> Users would never have ability to vote for Council. Foundation members can |
50 |
> only vote for Foundation stuff. Which Council voting would be left to |
51 |
> Developers. |
52 |
|
53 |
...which would be meaningless with Trustees having the power to |
54 |
override pretty much everything for no apparent reason. |
55 |
|
56 |
> > I don't see how either of those arguments are related to me being |
57 |
> > a Foundation member or not. After all, the Foundation protects *all* |
58 |
> > Gentoo work, independently of whether a developer doing it is a member |
59 |
> > or not, doesn't it? |
60 |
> |
61 |
> So the Foundation and Trustees should be legally liable for all your actions |
62 |
> without any influence? |
63 |
> |
64 |
> You can do what ever you want and we will be liable for your actions. Do you |
65 |
> want to be liable for all my actions. That is asking way to much of a Trustee |
66 |
> IMHO. Be 100% responsible and legally liable with no influence. |
67 |
|
68 |
I'm afraid we don't understand each other. I still don't see how |
69 |
liability is different for person who is a *member* of the Foundation, |
70 |
and for a developer who is not a member of the Foundation. |
71 |
|
72 |
> > They can get recruited. It's not hard. Getting a developer status |
73 |
> > (without commit access) mostly involves proving that you're accustomed |
74 |
> > to organization matters of how Gentoo operates. |
75 |
> |
76 |
> There are many in the community who either cannot or do not want to be come |
77 |
> Developers in any capacity. Just the same as those who do not want to be |
78 |
> members in the Foundation. |
79 |
|
80 |
So why are the people who don't want to be developers privileged over |
81 |
people who don't want to be Foundation members? |
82 |
|
83 |
> > I believe the legal liability concern is a rare enough issue for |
84 |
> > Trustees to be involved rather when that is a possible case rather than |
85 |
> > having them approve every step of everyone else. |
86 |
> |
87 |
> True, but just because no one has sued does not mean the project should not be |
88 |
> aware of such liabilities and seek to protect itself from law suit. |
89 |
|
90 |
You can protect Gentoo from liability without having total control over |
91 |
every aspect of Gentoo. There's a difference between power to make |
92 |
decisions that prevent liability and power to make any decisions. |
93 |
|
94 |
> > It's not perfect but I believe Gentoo could prevail. Maybe it'd even be |
95 |
> > beneficial long-term, since it would let the developers actually doing |
96 |
> > a lot of work to split from those who mostly talk. Pretty much getting |
97 |
> > Gentoo back to the roots, as Daniel Robbins seen it. |
98 |
> |
99 |
> That is not how Daniel sees it, and does not agree with such separation. That |
100 |
> is what people need to understand. What Gentoo has become it was not intended |
101 |
> to be, nor did it start that way. |
102 |
|
103 |
http://www.funtoo.org/Making_the_Distribution,_Part_1 |
104 |
|
105 |
And here we are, arguing that Gentoo should be lead by people 'who |
106 |
aren't writing any code (nor do they have any intention to). Instead they |
107 |
spend their time talking about more important things. You know, those |
108 |
managerial issues'. |
109 |
|
110 |
-- |
111 |
Best regards, |
112 |
Michał Górny |
113 |
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/> |