Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo metastructure reform - reality and SPI

[Matthew Thode]

On 01/11/2017 02:03 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> There has been a lot of debate recently regarding Gentoo’s
> metastructure. In response to this, there have been various proposals
> for reform. These other proposals appear to be focused on changing the
> way Gentoo operates to conform with a traditional corporate structure.
> I’d like to make an alternative proposal - change the organisational
> structure to conform with how Gentoo actually operates.
>
> Let’s first consider the proposed metastructure of another proposal
> that’s currently being discussed:
>
>         |--Council--(various projects)
>         |
>         |          |--Recruiting
> Board --+--Comrel--|
>         |          |--Something else
>         |
>         |--PR
>         |         |--Releng (if recognized)
>         |--Infra--|
>                   |--Portage (possibly)
>
> This is a reasonable-looking traditional corporate structure, but Gentoo
> is not a traditional corporation. Our primary purpose is to produce a
> Linux distribution. The Gentoo Foundation exists to handles legal and
> administrative matters and should serve the distribution, not the other
> way around.
>
> Despite the best efforts of the Board, the Foundation has repeatedly
> been plagued with problems such as poor record-keeping and at one point
> even fell into bad standing. I very much appreciate the work the
> Trustees have put in (especially in recent months to try and straighten
> everything out), but I have serious concerns about the Foundation’s
> long-term prospects, let alone handing them more responsibilities and power.
>
> Gentoo is a community-driven project lead by the Council, and we should
> keep it that way. I therefore propose we follow the lead of other major
> projects[0] and become associated with SPI[1], making use of their
> various services[2] such as accepting donations, and holding funds and
> other assets. As an associated project, Gentoo would retain its
> independence - SPI would not own, govern, or otherwise control us.
>
> SPI requires an associated project to have a liaison - a person who is
> authorised to direct SPI on behalf of the project. I propose this person
> be a Council member, selected from a vote of all Council members. Such a
> person must receive at least 50% of total votes and no ‘no’ votes. If
> this process fails to result in the selection of a liaison it will go to
> a majority vote from all developers.
>
> The new metastructure would look like this:
>
>         |-- SPI liaison
>         |
>         |
> Council -- Various projects
>
>
> [0] http://www.spi-inc.org/projects/
> [1] http://www.spi-inc.org/
> [2] http://www.spi-inc.org/projects/services/
>

I'm fine with this if this is what we decide to do (be externally
governed).  Thanks for taking this up :P

-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)