1 |
On 13/10/16 17:01, Roy Bamford wrote: |
2 |
> On 2016.10.13 00:30, Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
3 |
>> TL;DR: move comrel, infra, PR to Foundation. Have strict(er) |
4 |
>> application |
5 |
>> of policies to them in line with their powers. |
6 |
>> |
7 |
> [snip good stuff] |
8 |
> |
9 |
> Changing our metastruture towards a more normal corporate |
10 |
> structure will make the delegation of authority/responsibility |
11 |
> clearer, especially outside the USA. I think that's a good thing. |
12 |
> I live outside the USA, so maybe I'm biased. |
13 |
> |
14 |
> There must be a reason why every other corporation follows |
15 |
> one structural model and Gentoo has another. |
16 |
> Its not useful to go into in this thread, its sufficient to |
17 |
> recognise that we are where we are and need to work towards |
18 |
> where we want to be. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> The "two headed monster" corporate structure works as |
21 |
> long as we are all good friends and communicate well. |
22 |
> It fails when someone in 'the distro' screws up an the first |
23 |
> the Foundation gets to know of it is a writ delivered to our |
24 |
> snail mail address. |
25 |
> |
26 |
> There is a far worse scenario for the individuals (outside |
27 |
> of the officers and trustees of the Foundation) involved. |
28 |
> A legal action may name project members 'jointly and |
29 |
> severally'. Then we get to discussing if the project members |
30 |
> were acting on behalf of the Foundation or not. |
31 |
> This is the same discussion as who picks up the bill. |
32 |
> |
33 |
> I support the normalising of our corporate structure but |
34 |
> recognise that its a lot of admin work for all involved that |
35 |
> will not directly benefit our code base. |
36 |
> |
37 |
+1 |