Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: "Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Groups under the Council or Foundation: the structure & processes thereof
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 19:06:57
Message-Id: robbat2-20161013T181403-352597380Z@orbis-terrarum.net
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] Groups under the Council or Foundation: the structure & processes thereof by "Andreas K. Hüttel"
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