1 |
On Friday, June 8, 2018 2:02:42 PM EDT Andreas K. Huettel wrote: |
2 |
> Am Freitag, 8. Juni 2018, 19:44:00 CEST schrieb Andreas K. Huettel: |
3 |
> > Dear all, |
4 |
> > |
5 |
> > the Gentoo Council will meet again this sunday, 10 June 2018, 18:00 UTC on |
6 |
> > the #gentoo-council IRC channel. |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> > Please reply to this e-mail with agenda item proposals. |
9 |
> |
10 |
> I would like to put the following proposal on the agenda once more |
11 |
> (clarified and expanded): |
12 |
> |
13 |
> The Gentoo council shall directly contact "Software in the Public Interest |
14 |
> Inc." (SPI), with the intention of Gentoo becoming a SPI Associated Project. |
15 |
> The intention is for SPI to become an *additional* service provider of the |
16 |
> Gentoo developer community for Accepting Donations, Holding Funds, and |
17 |
> Holding Assets. The SPI project liaison shall be appointed by the Gentoo |
18 |
> council. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> No transfer of funds or assets of any kind between SPI and the Gentoo |
21 |
> Foundation is stipulated (it would be the trustees' responsibility anyway), |
22 |
> so any (dys)function of the Gentoo Foundation has no impact on this new |
23 |
> business relationship. Equally, the business relationship with SPI shall |
24 |
> have no impact on the current function of the Gentoo Foundation. |
25 |
> Essentially, the proposal is that we start with an empty account at SPI. |
26 |
> (I'll be happy to make the first donation.) |
27 |
> |
28 |
> |
29 |
> SPI does not require exclusivity; the company explicitly allows that a |
30 |
> project is also sponsored by further parties. As long as SPI does not |
31 |
> publicly represent Gentoo, there is no conflict regarding trademarks. Most |
32 |
> SPI associated projects are unincorporated associations of individuals, as |
33 |
> is the Gentoo developer community electing the Gentoo Council. |
34 |
> |
35 |
> As additional bonus, we will be gaining that donations to SPI are tax- |
36 |
> deductible both in the US and in the EU. |
37 |
> |
38 |
> The precise procedure for appointing the project liaison is up to debate; a |
39 |
> draft proposal can be found below. |
40 |
> == |
41 |
> a) The project liaison is a Gentoo developer appointed by the Gentoo |
42 |
> council, and bound to follow its instructions. |
43 |
> b) Appointment of the project liaison is by vote of the majority of council |
44 |
> members (i.e. >=4 votes). The only way to unseat the project liaison is to |
45 |
> appoint a different project liaison by vote. |
46 |
> c) Officers and trustees of the Gentoo Foundation are not eligible for |
47 |
> project liaison. |
48 |
|
49 |
Given that this could potentially be viewed an a step forward in negating the |
50 |
purpose of the Gentoo Foundation I find it wise the consider the following: |
51 |
|
52 |
No sitting council members may be appointed to the project liaison |
53 |
role. If this individual is under the strict instruction of the council this |
54 |
there is no purpose for a dual-hatted individual. As such, the project |
55 |
laision should be capable of disagreement with the council and not fear |
56 |
retribution by being unseated. This position should be highly coveted as it |
57 |
will *directly* impact the current and future health of *our* project. |
58 |
|
59 |
Additionally, the project liaison should be given some avenue of reprisal. |
60 |
First thought would be to introduce an all hands developer vote be called to |
61 |
unseat that project liaison. |
62 |
|
63 |
e.g. council appointed, but developer community removed. |
64 |
|
65 |
Again, this proposal *could* potentially be a step forward in negating the |
66 |
Foundation's purpose. As such, it is important that the dev community be |
67 |
aware of what is happening and why. Disagreements between the council and |
68 |
their appointed liaison should not be simply squashed by introducing a new |
69 |
liaison who will blindly do things the way the council wants. |
70 |
|
71 |
While I do not disagree with the SPI proposal I find it best that all proper |
72 |
checks and balances be in place. If SPI can offer stability for our |
73 |
intellectual property, donations, finances, etc then it would be the correct |
74 |
move. |
75 |
|
76 |
Ultimately, we *ought* to ensure that it is done the proper way. Please put |
77 |
the proper checks and balances in place. |
78 |
|
79 |
> d) The restriction of c) can be lifted permanently by Gentoo council |
80 |
> majority decision only after the council, the Gentoo Foundation trustees, |
81 |
> and the board of the financial sponsor organization have come into |
82 |
> agreement that * the financial situation of the Gentoo Foundation has been |
83 |
> sufficiently clarified, |
84 |
> * any outstanding taxes have been determined and paid, and |
85 |
> * any further outstanding relevant business of the Gentoo Foundation, i.e., |
86 |
> with the IRS, has been concluded. |
87 |
> == |