| 1 |
On 2016.10.13 00:30, Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
| 2 |
> TL;DR: move comrel, infra, PR to Foundation. Have strict(er) |
| 3 |
> application |
| 4 |
> of policies to them in line with their powers. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
[snip good stuff] |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Changing our metastruture towards a more normal corporate |
| 9 |
structure will make the delegation of authority/responsibility |
| 10 |
clearer, especially outside the USA. I think that's a good thing. |
| 11 |
I live outside the USA, so maybe I'm biased. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
There must be a reason why every other corporation follows |
| 14 |
one structural model and Gentoo has another. |
| 15 |
Its not useful to go into in this thread, its sufficient to |
| 16 |
recognise that we are where we are and need to work towards |
| 17 |
where we want to be. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
The "two headed monster" corporate structure works as |
| 20 |
long as we are all good friends and communicate well. |
| 21 |
It fails when someone in 'the distro' screws up an the first |
| 22 |
the Foundation gets to know of it is a writ delivered to our |
| 23 |
snail mail address. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
There is a far worse scenario for the individuals (outside |
| 26 |
of the officers and trustees of the Foundation) involved. |
| 27 |
A legal action may name project members 'jointly and |
| 28 |
severally'. Then we get to discussing if the project members |
| 29 |
were acting on behalf of the Foundation or not. |
| 30 |
This is the same discussion as who picks up the bill. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
I support the normalising of our corporate structure but |
| 33 |
recognise that its a lot of admin work for all involved that |
| 34 |
will not directly benefit our code base. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Regards, |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Roy Bamford |
| 40 |
(Neddyseagoon) a member of |
| 41 |
elections |
| 42 |
gentoo-ops |
| 43 |
forum-mods |
Archives