Re: [gentoo-project] Meeting agenda - Council meeting 2018-04-08

[Alexis Ballier]

On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 10:16:26 -0400
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 9:02 AM, Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o>
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 16:44:47 -0400
> > Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Presumably it would work similarly to the current state - we'd
> >> encourage people to donate via whatever organization we want the
> >> most money flowing into at the time.  If we need more money in the
> >> Foundation bank account, we'd point donors to the Foundation.  If
> >> we needed more money in some other bank account, we'd point donors
> >> to that one instead.
> >
> > Wow. So, presumably, we'd be showing a great lack of
> > professionalism to potential donors by our inability to solve
> > ridiculous internal disputes and asking them to pick sides.
> > Budgeting and delegating management of it is what usually allows to
> > maintain each sub-entity bank account (or virtual bank account) on
> > tracks, but the requirement for this to work is to be able to agree
> > in the first place...
>
> I wasn't suggesting having individuals "pick sides."  If we wanted one
> org to have more money we'd have the other org turn away donors and
> refer them to the other, unless for some reason it makes more sense to
> have that particular donor contribute to that particular organization.

This still creates confusion, and IMHO confusion there is extremely bad.
Not sure how current donors proceed, but redirecting them will likely
make some of them back off instead of following the redirection.



[...]
> A big part of the problem right now is that our current organizational
> model has two groups more-or-less in-charge, and it is difficult to
> get agreement on which one should be on top, in part because the model
> that makes the most sense legally (Foundation on top) has the worst
> organization fit (we're a bunch of programmers, not
> accountants/lawyers).  My guess is that if most contributors were
> given a choice they'd rather just see the legal issues "go away" and
> not have to worry about them.  The problem is that with our current
> model that isn't possible, and due to our history it seems to be
> pretty hard to change that, and it will be even harder if we're
> fighting ourselves.  Our model makes it even worse that we have one
> leadership board composed of volunteers who specifically want to be
> involved in the legal stuff, which is going to create more conflict.
>
> IMO getting another organization to help us out in our current state
> should be legally possible, but would probably require a bit of
> salesmanship to pull off.  If half the community actively takes steps
> to sabotage whatever solution the other half tries to attempt we're
> probably not going to succeed at anything.  This will be especially
> hard if due to disagreements on other issues there are individuals who
> aim to emphasize the disagreements that already exist.


Sure, another org is a great idea, but what I'm worried about is that
for now this gives me more the impression of council backstabbing the
foundation than trying to improve anything.


[...]