1 |
There has been a lot of debate recently regarding Gentoo’s |
2 |
metastructure. In response to this, there have been various proposals |
3 |
for reform. These other proposals appear to be focused on changing the |
4 |
way Gentoo operates to conform with a traditional corporate structure. |
5 |
I’d like to make an alternative proposal - change the organisational |
6 |
structure to conform with how Gentoo actually operates. |
7 |
|
8 |
Let’s first consider the proposed metastructure of another proposal |
9 |
that’s currently being discussed: |
10 |
|
11 |
|--Council--(various projects) |
12 |
| |
13 |
| |--Recruiting |
14 |
Board --+--Comrel--| |
15 |
| |--Something else |
16 |
| |
17 |
|--PR |
18 |
| |--Releng (if recognized) |
19 |
|--Infra--| |
20 |
|--Portage (possibly) |
21 |
|
22 |
This is a reasonable-looking traditional corporate structure, but Gentoo |
23 |
is not a traditional corporation. Our primary purpose is to produce a |
24 |
Linux distribution. The Gentoo Foundation exists to handles legal and |
25 |
administrative matters and should serve the distribution, not the other |
26 |
way around. |
27 |
|
28 |
Despite the best efforts of the Board, the Foundation has repeatedly |
29 |
been plagued with problems such as poor record-keeping and at one point |
30 |
even fell into bad standing. I very much appreciate the work the |
31 |
Trustees have put in (especially in recent months to try and straighten |
32 |
everything out), but I have serious concerns about the Foundation’s |
33 |
long-term prospects, let alone handing them more responsibilities and power. |
34 |
|
35 |
Gentoo is a community-driven project lead by the Council, and we should |
36 |
keep it that way. I therefore propose we follow the lead of other major |
37 |
projects[0] and become associated with SPI[1], making use of their |
38 |
various services[2] such as accepting donations, and holding funds and |
39 |
other assets. As an associated project, Gentoo would retain its |
40 |
independence - SPI would not own, govern, or otherwise control us. |
41 |
|
42 |
SPI requires an associated project to have a liaison - a person who is |
43 |
authorised to direct SPI on behalf of the project. I propose this person |
44 |
be a Council member, selected from a vote of all Council members. Such a |
45 |
person must receive at least 50% of total votes and no ‘no’ votes. If |
46 |
this process fails to result in the selection of a liaison it will go to |
47 |
a majority vote from all developers. |
48 |
|
49 |
The new metastructure would look like this: |
50 |
|
51 |
|-- SPI liaison |
52 |
| |
53 |
| |
54 |
Council -- Various projects |
55 |
|
56 |
|
57 |
[0] http://www.spi-inc.org/projects/ |
58 |
[1] http://www.spi-inc.org/ |
59 |
[2] http://www.spi-inc.org/projects/services/ |