1 |
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 02:39:04AM +0200, Andreas K. Hüttel wrote: |
2 |
> Am Donnerstag, 13. Oktober 2016, 01:30:23 schrieb Robin H. Johnson: |
3 |
> > TL;DR: move comrel, infra, PR to Foundation. |
4 |
> |
5 |
> No. For the following reasons not: |
6 |
> |
7 |
> In the past the foundation trustees have shown to be fairly detached from the |
8 |
> Gentoo daily life, |
9 |
Are you referring to the first board prior to the New Mexico revocation |
10 |
& full slate retirement, or the entirely new board elected thereafter? |
11 |
The first board retired in full because they spent most of 3 years |
12 |
debating bylaws and copyright assignment, then failed to notice the NFP |
13 |
renewal paperwork problems. |
14 |
|
15 |
> and as a consequence happily added known troublemakers to the |
16 |
> foundation membership list. |
17 |
The membership criterion (bylaw 4.3) is contribution to Gentoo & it's |
18 |
aims. While the Trustees do have the right by majority vote to reject an |
19 |
application, it's otherwise automatic. The bylaws don't grant any |
20 |
specific rights otherwise to reject 'troublemakers'. |
21 |
|
22 |
Secondly, why do you feel that is a problem? The Trustees do retain the |
23 |
right (bylaws section 4.9) to boot a member. Since I became a trustee, |
24 |
and we have a solid track of logs & recorded motions, we've never |
25 |
terminated member for any reason other than lack of sustained interest |
26 |
(retired devs not voting in the election anymore). Sustained interest, |
27 |
even from somebody you deem a 'troublemaker', is mostly to the good of |
28 |
Gentoo. |
29 |
|
30 |
Even wltjr resigned from the Foundation], and was not terminated: |
31 |
https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/dc2f34046910b10e6ddcb8304410046b |
32 |
|
33 |
This has substantial similarities to an environment activist buying just |
34 |
one or two voting shares in an oil company, so they are entitled to |
35 |
reports from the board. |
36 |
|
37 |
> This is not a body qualified have oversight of the developer community in any |
38 |
> way. |
39 |
Not over the technical side of the developer community, but over |
40 |
anything with legal implications for the distribution. |
41 |
|
42 |
> Also, (before you came along, which is something I'm very very grateful for), |
43 |
> in the past the trustees haven't even managed to get the one thing straight |
44 |
> that they're really answering for - namely, our finances. |
45 |
The prior financial reporting was lacking, but in the complete audit I |
46 |
did, I found no mismanagement of funds. An extreme caution was exercised |
47 |
instead, to the point of not spending funds unless the outcomes were |
48 |
extremely clear. I do actually intend to publish the complete ledgers & |
49 |
financial statements, in a slightly anonymised form. The prior tax |
50 |
filings may also have been deficient, but we're still doing record |
51 |
gathering on that part (as I mentioned in my talk about the Foundation |
52 |
this past weekend at the MiniConf). |
53 |
|
54 |
> So why should we trust them with more responsibilities? |
55 |
Why? They are charged with forwarding the aims of the distribution, and |
56 |
ensuring we are a legitimate legal entity. If you believe prior problems |
57 |
permanently prevents a group from taking on responsibilities in future, |
58 |
then you're always going to be running short of groups to take on the |
59 |
responsibilities. |
60 |
|
61 |
> (Right now even the Foundation web page does not properly reflect the June |
62 |
> election results yet.) |
63 |
What page are you looking at? The wiki is definitely up to date, and I |
64 |
can't think of anywhere else that reflects the results directly. |
65 |
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Main_Page |
66 |
It was updated as of 2016/Sept/05 to add the trustee (prometheanfire). |
67 |
|
68 |
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Elections/Trustees/201606 had the |
69 |
results listed 3 days after the election closed. |
70 |
|
71 |
> We might maybe talk about this again one day if the trustees are voted for by |
72 |
> the same electorate as the council. Not the other way around. |
73 |
There is a significant overlap in the electorate, and arguably the |
74 |
Foundation members are more invested: if they don't vote in two |
75 |
consecutive Trustee elections, then they get booted. Council elections |
76 |
however include all developers that haven't yet been retired, or are |
77 |
just minimally active (a few commits a year, and little other |
78 |
involvement in the distribution). |
79 |
|
80 |
If you look at the voter lists for the most recent election: |
81 |
https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/elections.git/ |
82 |
council: 242 voters on the electoral roll. |
83 |
trustees: 97 voters on the electoral roll. |
84 |
88 in common. |
85 |
|
86 |
Elections team (myself included): |
87 |
- Can we publish a list of who actually voted in each election? |
88 |
- We need to update the foundation membership list post-election still. |
89 |
(I think at least 6 of the people listed only in trustees voters |
90 |
didn't submit a ballot). |
91 |
|
92 |
> > Have strict(er) application |
93 |
> > of policies to them in line with their powers. |
94 |
> Well, feel free to draw up the policies, but you still need people wiling to |
95 |
> do the work... |
96 |
I'll start with one for you: |
97 |
All records which are stored or retained on Foundation hardware, and |
98 |
related to the management of the distribution are the property of the |
99 |
Foundation, and are subject to the jurisdiction in which the Foundation |
100 |
is incorporated: New Mexico, USA. |
101 |
|
102 |
-- |
103 |
Robin Hugh Johnson |
104 |
Gentoo Linux: Dev, Infra Lead, Foundation Trustee & Treasurer |
105 |
E-Mail : robbat2@g.o |
106 |
GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85 |
107 |
GnuPG FP : 7D0B3CEB E9B85B1F 825BCECF EE05E6F6 A48F6136 |