| 1 |
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 5:37 PM, Matthew Thode |
| 2 |
<prometheanfire@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> 1. External control of Gentoo. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> I don't think there's much stopping us from investigating this as a |
| 6 |
> possible option in the future but I think that this is mostly orthogonal |
| 7 |
> to this proposal. Whatever the new 'board' would do would would just be |
| 8 |
> reduced if we do choose external control. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
While this is sort-of true I think it is still worth tackling at the |
| 11 |
same time, since if the board has reduced responsibilities that might |
| 12 |
be important to people voting for the board. For example, it is less |
| 13 |
useful to have an accountant on the board (say, at the expense of |
| 14 |
somebody who is more of a developer) if there won't be any accounting |
| 15 |
to do. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
It has been pointed out that we might still have to get a lot of |
| 18 |
paperwork in order to make a transition to SPI. I think that is |
| 19 |
something we should of course investigate with them, and if it turns |
| 20 |
out the case they might be willing to help us with it, or recommend |
| 21 |
somebody who has done this in the past for them. They would also |
| 22 |
probably be able to give us a checklist of specific actions that would |
| 23 |
need to be completed, which is a lot less nebulous a task than "get |
| 24 |
the Foundation in order," and we could probably bid the work out to a |
| 25 |
CPA/lawyer or other qualified professional (it is a defined and finite |
| 26 |
amount of work with a clear exit strategy). |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> SPI has been mentioned a couple of times and if anyone wants to |
| 29 |
> contact them to work something out to propose to the foundation I don't |
| 30 |
> think there's anything stopping you :D |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
That's fair. I think the onus is always on people putting forward a |
| 33 |
proposal to do the legwork, though it was probably still wise to give |
| 34 |
the trustees the right of first refusal since it is a |
| 35 |
Foundation-related thing. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> 9. Members of the 'board' having conflicts with their job. |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> I'm, not sure about this as it's likely case by case. But I |
| 41 |
> personally don't see this causing much more issues than what is already |
| 42 |
> caused by working on an open source project. |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
I'll just comment that this would be one of the benefits of going the |
| 46 |
SPI route (or another such org). The board would not have the same |
| 47 |
legal conflicts as it would if it were actually legally responsible |
| 48 |
for a Foundation. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
Either way I of course support the general direction of your proposal. |
| 51 |
I just think that this is a big enough detail that it shouldn't just |
| 52 |
be put on the back burner. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
-- |
| 55 |
Rich |
Archives