1 |
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 12:28:35 -0500 |
4 |
> "William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@××××××.com> wrote: |
5 |
> |
6 |
> > On Wednesday, January 11, 2017 5:50:50 PM EST Michał Górny wrote: |
7 |
> > > |
8 |
> > > And how is that not discriminating? On one hand you talk of giving |
9 |
> > > people outside the project the means to influence it, yet you |
10 |
> > > explicitly take away the right of voting for people outside |
11 |
> > > the Foundation (even though they are in the project, after all). |
12 |
> > |
13 |
> > If as a Developer you opt out of Foundation membership. You cannot turn |
14 |
> > around and claim discrimination to something you chose to leave. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> What if I *have* to opt out because of my employment or local law? For |
17 |
> example, if my contract forbids me from being *enlisted* |
18 |
> in corporations working in the IT sector? |
19 |
> |
20 |
|
21 |
And how exactly would it be the responsibility of anyone but the employee |
22 |
in question? |
23 |
|
24 |
I don't think the foundation is legally required to be super-preemptive |
25 |
about stuff like this, but ask a lawyer. |
26 |
|
27 |
It does puzzle me why it would be any business of the foundation to deal |
28 |
with your contract unless the foundation deliberately interfered. |
29 |
|
30 |
It's easy to argue whether things can or can't happen but will you |
31 |
> defend me against a lawsuit from my employer? Will the Foundation |
32 |
> guarantee that? As I see it, keeping a low profile should be |
33 |
> developer's right. |
34 |
> |
35 |
|
36 |
This would require indemnification of the developer by the foundation. |
37 |
|
38 |
> > I'm not sure if you've seen that but Gentoo developers lately have been |
39 |
> > > harassed by multiple users who had no to minor contributions yet |
40 |
> > > believed they are the best people to tell developers how do their work. |
41 |
> > |
42 |
> > Which is why they would be better served to voice their opinions to |
43 |
> Trustees. |
44 |
> > Let Trustees approach council if they feel it is best. If Council feels |
45 |
> the |
46 |
> > need they could consult Developers. |
47 |
> > |
48 |
> > > Accepting input is one thing. Letting people who do not do current |
49 |
> > > Gentoo work (= aren't affected by the decisions directly) decide on |
50 |
> > > what others should do is another. |
51 |
> > |
52 |
> > Just because Foundation, Council, and Gentoo project want to do |
53 |
> something. |
54 |
> > Does not mean YOU have to do that. At the same time a project should not |
55 |
> be |
56 |
> > just left up to those scratching itches. If by some means all that |
57 |
> individual |
58 |
> > itch scratching leads to something collectively great. |
59 |
> > |
60 |
> > At some point has to be some big picture to how all the stuff fits |
61 |
> together. |
62 |
> > Are we a organized team/project or just individuals doing what ever? |
63 |
> |
64 |
> We are individuals who can get along eventually and make a pretty |
65 |
> decent distro as a result. For some time already. |
66 |
> |
67 |
> > > How can a user who has barely any contact with Gentoo developers be |
68 |
> > > able to choose good candidates for the Council? |
69 |
> > |
70 |
> > Users would never have ability to vote for Council. Foundation members |
71 |
> can |
72 |
> > only vote for Foundation stuff. Which Council voting would be left to |
73 |
> > Developers. |
74 |
> |
75 |
> ...which would be meaningless with Trustees having the power to |
76 |
> override pretty much everything for no apparent reason. |
77 |
> |
78 |
> > > I don't see how either of those arguments are related to me being |
79 |
> > > a Foundation member or not. After all, the Foundation protects *all* |
80 |
> > > Gentoo work, independently of whether a developer doing it is a member |
81 |
> > > or not, doesn't it? |
82 |
> > |
83 |
> > So the Foundation and Trustees should be legally liable for all your |
84 |
> actions |
85 |
> > without any influence? |
86 |
> > |
87 |
> > You can do what ever you want and we will be liable for your actions. Do |
88 |
> you |
89 |
> > want to be liable for all my actions. That is asking way to much of a |
90 |
> Trustee |
91 |
> > IMHO. Be 100% responsible and legally liable with no influence. |
92 |
> |
93 |
> I'm afraid we don't understand each other. I still don't see how |
94 |
> liability is different for person who is a *member* of the Foundation, |
95 |
> and for a developer who is not a member of the Foundation. |
96 |
> |
97 |
> > > They can get recruited. It's not hard. Getting a developer status |
98 |
> > > (without commit access) mostly involves proving that you're accustomed |
99 |
> > > to organization matters of how Gentoo operates. |
100 |
> > |
101 |
> > There are many in the community who either cannot or do not want to be |
102 |
> come |
103 |
> > Developers in any capacity. Just the same as those who do not want to be |
104 |
> > members in the Foundation. |
105 |
> |
106 |
> So why are the people who don't want to be developers privileged over |
107 |
> people who don't want to be Foundation members? |
108 |
> |
109 |
> > > I believe the legal liability concern is a rare enough issue for |
110 |
> > > Trustees to be involved rather when that is a possible case rather than |
111 |
> > > having them approve every step of everyone else. |
112 |
> > |
113 |
> > True, but just because no one has sued does not mean the project should |
114 |
> not be |
115 |
> > aware of such liabilities and seek to protect itself from law suit. |
116 |
> |
117 |
> You can protect Gentoo from liability without having total control over |
118 |
> every aspect of Gentoo. There's a difference between power to make |
119 |
> decisions that prevent liability and power to make any decisions. |
120 |
> |
121 |
> > > It's not perfect but I believe Gentoo could prevail. Maybe it'd even be |
122 |
> > > beneficial long-term, since it would let the developers actually doing |
123 |
> > > a lot of work to split from those who mostly talk. Pretty much getting |
124 |
> > > Gentoo back to the roots, as Daniel Robbins seen it. |
125 |
> > |
126 |
> > That is not how Daniel sees it, and does not agree with such separation. |
127 |
> That |
128 |
> > is what people need to understand. What Gentoo has become it was not |
129 |
> intended |
130 |
> > to be, nor did it start that way. |
131 |
> |
132 |
> http://www.funtoo.org/Making_the_Distribution,_Part_1 |
133 |
> |
134 |
> And here we are, arguing that Gentoo should be lead by people 'who |
135 |
> aren't writing any code (nor do they have any intention to). Instead they |
136 |
> spend their time talking about more important things. You know, those |
137 |
> managerial issues'. |
138 |
> |
139 |
> -- |
140 |
> Best regards, |
141 |
> Michał Górny |
142 |
> <http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/> |
143 |
> |