| 1 |
On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 4:37:05 PM EST Matthew Thode wrote: |
| 2 |
> I'm separating out this email to contain just the responses to various |
| 3 |
> questions and concerns. I'll send another separate thread with the |
| 4 |
> updated text. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> 1. External control of Gentoo. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> I don't think there's much stopping us from investigating this as a |
| 9 |
> possible option in the future but I think that this is mostly orthogonal |
| 10 |
> to this proposal. Whatever the new 'board' would do would would just be |
| 11 |
> reduced if we do choose external control. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Best to be left to after merge or what ever. This is more a matter for the |
| 14 |
board, and vote of Foundation members. Which hopefully would encourage more |
| 15 |
participation in Foundation matters. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Keep in mind the SPI is run by members, and they highly encourage members of |
| 18 |
any projects they represent to be involved in the SPI. If they are not taking |
| 19 |
part in foundation, not sure they would in SPI. Why I am not sure this is |
| 20 |
really a viable option. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> SPI has been mentioned a couple of times and if anyone wants to |
| 23 |
> contact them to work something out to propose to the foundation I don't |
| 24 |
> think there's anything stopping you :D |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Nor is there anything stopping anyone from becoming a member of the SPI and |
| 27 |
participating in that organization today. No matter if Gentoo uses the SPI. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
"Anyone is eligible to apply for membership in Software in the Public |
| 30 |
Interest, Inc. " |
| 31 |
http://www.spi-inc.org/membership/ |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> 5. We should have a BDFL (more or less) |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> I don't agree with this personally and it is not the goal of this |
| 36 |
> proposal to move to that model. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
This is surely something that could be discussed later and not part of this |
| 39 |
merger. One step at a time. I would think any such role would play into the |
| 40 |
Council and Trustees, as a third entity for say checks and balances. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Could break any potential issues or stalemate between Council and Trustees if |
| 43 |
ever came to such. Not to likely but could also serve as leadership, that the |
| 44 |
Trustees and Council would have to sign off on direction wise. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
But again best to leave such to a next step. one thing at a time. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
> 7. Exclusion of the community. |
| 49 |
> |
| 50 |
> I don't think this is as much a problem as people think. The |
| 51 |
> definition of 'developer' changed about a year ago to mean what used to |
| 52 |
> be 'staff or developer'. So anyone who is what used to be called staff |
| 53 |
> (which I think people applying to the foundation should probably be |
| 54 |
> considered) would have representation (through their vote). |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
There could always be a non-contributing membership for regular community |
| 57 |
members, and that is not saying they are not contributing, just not a |
| 58 |
"developer". That would allow them participation in the Foundation, voting for |
| 59 |
say Trustees, but NOT allow them to vote for say Council or technical aspects. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
Though technical things if the community wanted could be passed from Trustees |
| 62 |
to Council. As in Trustee merges both Developer and Community bodies, where |
| 63 |
Council is more focused on Developer and technical aspects. Rather than |
| 64 |
community voicing things to council, could go to Trustees. If Trustees feel |
| 65 |
its something of benefit, Trustees present to Council. Which Council can weight |
| 66 |
community will with that of Developers. |
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
> 8. Merging the voting pools. |
| 69 |
> |
| 70 |
> The process for this will be better defined in the next version of the |
| 71 |
> proposal. |
| 72 |
|
| 73 |
For now I would say keep separate, as they may have different pools of voters, |
| 74 |
per previous comments or other reason. Merging voting pools may make things |
| 75 |
more complex. If they opt out of Foundation voting, does that opt them out of |
| 76 |
Council voting? For the opt out reason alone, this may have to always be |
| 77 |
separate pools. |
| 78 |
|
| 79 |
> 9. Members of the 'board' having conflicts with their job. |
| 80 |
> |
| 81 |
> I'm, not sure about this as it's likely case by case. But I |
| 82 |
> personally don't see this causing much more issues than what is already |
| 83 |
> caused by working on an open source project. |
| 84 |
|
| 85 |
Yes, and by laws have provisions on such. If the community/developers really |
| 86 |
feel there is a conflict they can present that to other board members. I think |
| 87 |
the By Laws may need some revision here and more details on conflicts. |
| 88 |
Something for Trustees to work on and deal with, but easily addressed and |
| 89 |
prevented in advance. |
| 90 |
|
| 91 |
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/ |
| 92 |
Foundation:Bylaws#Section_5.13._Director_Conflicts_of_Interest. |
| 93 |
|
| 94 |
|
| 95 |
-- |
| 96 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |
Archives