Re: [gentoo-project] Groups under the Council or Foundation: the structure & processes thereof

[M. J. Everitt]

On 13/11/16 15:05, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 9:53 AM, M. J. Everitt <m.j.everitt@×××.org> wrote:
>> Foundation
>> =======
>> Legal entity
>> Deals with finance
>> Deals with compliance
>> Provides Infra
>> Provides/oversees Staff
>>
>> Council
>> =====
>> Fulfils aim of Linux Distribution
>> Oversees projects
>> Innovates and develops
>>
>> Both are Foundation and Council are elected bodies from the staff
>> electorate.
>>
>> Anyone with any objections to this structure?
>>
> IMO it would make more sense to limit the Foundation to things that
> require a legal entity to provide, such as finance, IP, etc.  I don't
> think it should be running Infra or administering staff.  And I'm not
> entirely convinced that having an independent Foundation is even the
> best way of dealing with financial issues as most other distros seem
> to be moving away from this (if they're not run by a big corporation
> already).  If we joined SPI like Debian/Arch/Freedesktop/etc then we
> wouldn't need to have anybody dealing with most of the details
> finance/compliance/etc, we would just need to tell them when we need
> bills paid and so on.  That could be a special project but with a lot
> less manpower required than what the Trustees currently have to deal
> with.
No .. I feel this separates the Council to deal with the day-to-day
running of the distro, and the Foundation that are legally and
financially responsible. I think the roles are distinct and different,
and since both can be accused of being "asleep at the wheel" I think
each should be minimally accountable to the other.

It also addresses your concerns that the key aims of Gentoo are, in your
words:

"We're here to create a Linux distribution."

and not to run servers, handle HR and do finances, etc.
> I'd also comment that innovation and development is the responsibility
> of all of our contributors.  I don't think that the role of a Council
> member should be seen as some kind of prize for being the most
> innovative/etc.  Sure, they should have the general respect of the
> community, but it is a role like any other with its own set of
> necessary skills/etc.
The problem with council as it stands .. is its a purely reactionary
body. There is a sleepy subculture that 'everything is fine' and
"nothing needs to be done" which is not really helpful for an innovating
and active distribution. Imho.
> Ultimately though I think it is helpful to have one group of people
> who cast votes and decide what we ought to be doing, and one set of
> representatives elected by this group of voters, so that we don't have
> debates between multiple governance bodies that all believe they have
> a mandate.
>
Broadly agreed with the first element, but don't agree that it leads
necessarily to the latter situation.