1 |
On 18-04-07 10:16:26, Rich Freeman wrote: |
2 |
> On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 9:02 AM, Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> > On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 16:44:47 -0400 |
4 |
> > Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
> > |
6 |
> >> |
7 |
> >> Presumably it would work similarly to the current state - we'd |
8 |
> >> encourage people to donate via whatever organization we want the most |
9 |
> >> money flowing into at the time. If we need more money in the |
10 |
> >> Foundation bank account, we'd point donors to the Foundation. If we |
11 |
> >> needed more money in some other bank account, we'd point donors to |
12 |
> >> that one instead. |
13 |
> > |
14 |
> > Wow. So, presumably, we'd be showing a great lack of professionalism to |
15 |
> > potential donors by our inability to solve ridiculous internal |
16 |
> > disputes and asking them to pick sides. |
17 |
> > Budgeting and delegating management of it is what usually allows to |
18 |
> > maintain each sub-entity bank account (or virtual bank account) on |
19 |
> > tracks, but the requirement for this to work is to be able to agree |
20 |
> > in the first place... |
21 |
> |
22 |
> I wasn't suggesting having individuals "pick sides." If we wanted one |
23 |
> org to have more money we'd have the other org turn away donors and |
24 |
> refer them to the other, unless for some reason it makes more sense to |
25 |
> have that particular donor contribute to that particular organization. |
26 |
> |
27 |
> I agree that ultimately we need one group to be overall in charge for |
28 |
> this to work, because we don't want two legal entities fighting each |
29 |
> other. |
30 |
> |
31 |
> A big part of the problem right now is that our current organizational |
32 |
> model has two groups more-or-less in-charge, and it is difficult to |
33 |
> get agreement on which one should be on top, in part because the model |
34 |
> that makes the most sense legally (Foundation on top) has the worst |
35 |
> organization fit (we're a bunch of programmers, not |
36 |
> accountants/lawyers). My guess is that if most contributors were |
37 |
> given a choice they'd rather just see the legal issues "go away" and |
38 |
> not have to worry about them. The problem is that with our current |
39 |
> model that isn't possible, and due to our history it seems to be |
40 |
> pretty hard to change that, and it will be even harder if we're |
41 |
> fighting ourselves. Our model makes it even worse that we have one |
42 |
> leadership board composed of volunteers who specifically want to be |
43 |
> involved in the legal stuff, which is going to create more conflict. |
44 |
> |
45 |
> IMO getting another organization to help us out in our current state |
46 |
> should be legally possible, but would probably require a bit of |
47 |
> salesmanship to pull off. If half the community actively takes steps |
48 |
> to sabotage whatever solution the other half tries to attempt we're |
49 |
> probably not going to succeed at anything. This will be especially |
50 |
> hard if due to disagreements on other issues there are individuals who |
51 |
> aim to emphasize the disagreements that already exist. |
52 |
> |
53 |
> I think that trying to bring in another org to take on some of the |
54 |
> load makes a lot of sense, but I'm skeptical that it will be possible |
55 |
> if the Trustees are opposed to the idea. That said, I have a fear |
56 |
> that this problem will just continue to grow worse until something |
57 |
> snaps, and the result may or may not be a viable distro. |
58 |
> |
59 |
|
60 |
How about we solve the problems rather then running into a strangers |
61 |
arms? While having two orgs manage the same group is technically |
62 |
possible I highly doubt it'll happen for multiple reasons. |
63 |
|
64 |
First, like you said, the trustees must approve it as it's a business |
65 |
and legal decision. If council goes ahead with this it'd likely go |
66 |
against section 4.9 of the foundation bylaws and if they are a member |
67 |
of the foundation they could be removed (possible, not certain). |
68 |
|
69 |
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Bylaws#Section_4.9._Termination_from_Membership. |
70 |
|
71 |
Second, I highly doubt that any other org would be willing to manage the |
72 |
project without at least some sort of license/trademark agreement |
73 |
between the foundation and them. Most likely, they'd want to own the |
74 |
copyright/trademark. |
75 |
|
76 |
Third, I also doubt any org stepping in would want to manage one of two |
77 |
accounts (bank wise), they'd want to manage all the money. |
78 |
|
79 |
Fourth, I don't think any group would be willing to be co-managers with |
80 |
another. We'd be replacing one structure, where two groups think they |
81 |
are in charge but one legally is, with two groups who think they are in |
82 |
charge and both legally are. |
83 |
|
84 |
-- |
85 |
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire) |