1 |
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 1:35 PM, Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> The foundation do not need to be involved any more that they are now. |
3 |
> Anyone can apply for foundation funding for a project. |
4 |
> As an individual trustee, I don't see this project as any different to |
5 |
> any other project that way apply for funding. |
6 |
|
7 |
I think the idea is that the policy would be that the Foundation would |
8 |
agree to not fund services that didn't follow the guidelines. |
9 |
|
10 |
The rationale would be that if somebody hosts a service funded by the |
11 |
Foundation and it gets used to serve malware then the Foundation might |
12 |
be legally responsible. That is why most organizations don't let |
13 |
random people run its webservers/etc without any kind of adherence to |
14 |
central administration/security/etc. Or perhaps Foundation funds get |
15 |
used to build some service, but because there is no coordination with |
16 |
infra there is no way to ever move it into production and it just |
17 |
fizzles out. |
18 |
|
19 |
This wouldn't be about keeping people from running services, but |
20 |
rather encouraging it in a way that makes it safer for the community, |
21 |
gives recognition to those who built it, and gives it some kind of |
22 |
roadmap to being a full-fleged Gentoo service. Maybe it creates a way |
23 |
to on-board new devs into Infra as well. |
24 |
|
25 |
I'm talking about services - if somebody wants a sparc under their |
26 |
desk not generally exposed to the world advertising its services under |
27 |
the Gentoo name then there really isn't any need for this. |
28 |
|
29 |
I imagine most organizations do it this way. If some Google employee |
30 |
wants to build a development tool or a 10% project hosted on a PC in |
31 |
their cube most likely the policy requirements are minimal, but on the |
32 |
other hand if somebody is touching some server that actually generates |
33 |
content that goes out under the google.com domain then I'm sure the |
34 |
red tape gets fairly thick. |
35 |
|
36 |
If we're not going to give any kind of Foundation preference to |
37 |
following the new guidelines, then I don't really see the point in |
38 |
going forward with it. |
39 |
|
40 |
Rich |