Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 22:38:13
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years by Roy Bamford
Hash: SHA512

On 08/02/2011 11:21 PM, Roy Bamford wrote:
> On 2011.08.02 22:50, Markos Chandras wrote: >> On 08/02/2011 07:24 PM, Roy Bamford wrote: >>> Team, >>> >>> The trustees are legally accountable and responsible for the >>> operation of the Gentoo Foundation Inc. Some things in the >>> bylaws are there to comply with statutes. >>> >>> The Gentoo council has no legal standing whatsoever, which I >>> have already said (at FOSEDEM) makes me a little nervous as a >>> trustee, since the council makes decisions on behalf of Gentoo >>> that the Foundation would be held both accountable and >>> responsible for. >> There >>> have been no issues with that, yet. >> >> The council is supposed to discuss and decides on technical or >> project wise issues. How can a technical decision violate laws etc? >> I can't think on top of my head an issue that would expose >> Foundation. Can you please provide an example? > Any decision that has copyright, licence, or patent implications > could expose the Foundation. Although, I do agree with Rich0 that the > two bodies have worked well together, so it has not been an issue. > >> >>> >>> Maybe its time to reorganise Gentoo along standard corporate >>> lines again, as it was before drobbins left. If we go in that >>> direction, the council becomes a technical committee that is part >>> of the Foundation. GLEP39 is no longer needed and the Foundation >>> bylaws >> are >>> amended to reflect the new structure. >> >> If we go in that direction, I see no point in having the >> Foundation and the Council as two separate entities. In this case >> it would make much more sense to merge them. > > Division of responsibilities is important, in the business world, its > essential, and the Foundation is first and foremost a business, even > if its directors and officers are not paid. The Foundation does not > get any special treatment from the state of New Mexico, nor the IRS > and friends.
The Council and the Foundation already have different responsibilities.
> > It would be unethical if the council could vote funds for a council > devised project. Likewise, trustees need business administration > skills rather than technical skills and should not determine the > technical direction of Gentoo.
Agreed. But this is the kind of structure we have at the moment isn't it?
> > I'm suggesting that the informal interdependencies that are present > between the council and the foundation be formalised along the lines > of a standard corporation.
This is the part that I don't understand. Could you please explain that and/or provide a layout of the new organizational structure that you propose?
> >> I don't quite like the idea though. > Would you care to expand on that? >
Mainly because I fail to understand the changes you propose and because I am quite happy with the way things are at the moment. - -- Regards, Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJOOHwrAAoJEPqDWhW0r/LCc6gQAMQfu5v5NM8s4Wc6Uo7q8UYL QTNWtIElqLVwnC6M3EsCttrJc9Y4tHqfvWzfyUIitYX6xToW1hPe0VPCQ/ODjNli iqsKC+pjvOPmgJ9jnTL4Fkx2PokjGc3q6Ys4GqxXNYbjOTCBJnBPWwcP4OJRnDXR szPv3Fiapibee+piNn9BhCQcqzr2WAQ9INI4ZKDjCxmVs47oAEyRip0s4RUQ8zvN 3M/7tDQbrldySom3uR0/0A5x0CF3OuW+090x3H3S6qL3S6QG+CkNm0mWRkCuZoMD xSfvH2jQ2woIr+D4B+7OQ0o4oaopqxCDFqsuka7qcAUjnDrFSoEob/Z8+JbtXK/+ dQjki9g2OxJfpV+v8DTI42uAJQJ/7Lc8UlLURy8OIFeZIvzLITH2uBt4ZBoZfjEP zXQ4V7DiroX0gzDeRM3Bazd6fMLjPWukbf57LTGpZ79IqLlOYlts9I7+j1sRduna /WOGEJM73yugW2fGbGbtK1pYNHzpC6x7KmyPqIY12pja4jP/l+LAYfRB9CjCQX0d YDVzifFMiQ+16C+OMrg2IubSue4g7QydqkpnarAe8GNnftkZMVsYtPsBLSoV0HM3 4cl/hD56e3zBrJMT3A2C54mBD8dLdxPw2+mB8w1oPJVggwKhSnyFajKSoDqJQbGn rOCLZ0YxChfHdH6BZlKU =y+GD -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----