1 |
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 10:56:16 -0500 |
4 |
> "William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@××××××.com> wrote: |
5 |
> |
6 |
> > On Wednesday, January 11, 2017 3:46:34 PM EST Michał Górny wrote: |
7 |
> > > |
8 |
> > > 1. I do not mind encouraging more developers to join the Foundation, or |
9 |
> > > even making it opt-out. However, I do oppose discriminating developers |
10 |
> > > who decide not to join the Foundation. |
11 |
> > |
12 |
> > There should not be any discrimination. Just an understanding by opting |
13 |
> out |
14 |
> > you give up your voice/vote. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> And how is that not discriminating? On one hand you talk of giving |
17 |
> people outside the project the means to influence it, yet you |
18 |
> explicitly take away the right of voting for people outside |
19 |
> the Foundation (even though they are in the project, after all). |
20 |
> |
21 |
|
22 |
To put it another way: |
23 |
|
24 |
1) One goal is to have more foundation members who are also developers |
25 |
(alignment of ideas). |
26 |
2) If joining the foundation offers no benefit, then developers will not |
27 |
join. |
28 |
3) One benefit we could offer is to merge the voting pools, so that the |
29 |
voters for Trustees and the Council are the same. |
30 |
4) This means that anyone who "really cares about how Gentoo is run as a |
31 |
distribution" is nominally forced to join the Foundation to exercise their |
32 |
vote. |
33 |
|
34 |
This is a specific implementation of the basic idea that "the foundation |
35 |
has no interesting duties, so we need to give it interesting duties." I |
36 |
suspect there are other ways of making Foundation membership useful enough |
37 |
that people actually pursue it. |
38 |
|
39 |
(Reading it written out it does look like a fairly draconian approach.) |
40 |
|
41 |
-A |
42 |
|
43 |
|
44 |
> |
45 |
> > |
46 |
> > > 2. I agree on having a single pool of voters. However, I believe those |
47 |
> > > should be limited to active Gentoo developers, independently of |
48 |
> > > Foundation membership. |
49 |
> > |
50 |
> > If one pool, not sure you can opt out of Foundation. Since that means you |
51 |
> > cannot vote for Foundation, then you may no be able to vote for Council. |
52 |
> > |
53 |
> > Plus may be contestable to merge beyond the voting issue. Easier to not |
54 |
> merge |
55 |
> > and leave as is now. |
56 |
> > |
57 |
> > Also most projects give means for people outside to be part of the |
58 |
> project. |
59 |
> > Non-contributing members. Why should members of the community not have |
60 |
> any |
61 |
> > say? It is just a vote. The Trustees would have to present to Council and |
62 |
> > those two bodies decide if it is best for Gentoo. |
63 |
> > |
64 |
> > Only reason to not give the community any representation is to say we do |
65 |
> not |
66 |
> > care what you think, you have no say in Gentoo. Only those with a vested |
67 |
> > interest have a say. It is one way to go but not a very open way IMHO. |
68 |
> > |
69 |
> > Gentoo should welcome everyone's input. Some may have technical |
70 |
> contributions, |
71 |
> > others documentation. Maybe some have good ideas for Gentoo. |
72 |
> |
73 |
> I'm not sure if you've seen that but Gentoo developers lately have been |
74 |
> harassed by multiple users who had no to minor contributions yet |
75 |
> believed they are the best people to tell developers how do their work. |
76 |
> |
77 |
> Accepting input is one thing. Letting people who do not do current |
78 |
> Gentoo work (= aren't affected by the decisions directly) decide on |
79 |
> what others should do is another. |
80 |
> |
81 |
> How can a user who has barely any contact with Gentoo developers be |
82 |
> able to choose good candidates for the Council? |
83 |
> |
84 |
> > > First of all, I'd like to point out how I see the 'problem' of many |
85 |
> > > developers not being part of the Foundation. I think that in most |
86 |
> > > cases, it's just a matter of 'simplicity': why would I bother joining |
87 |
> > > Gentoo Foundation if it does not affect my Gentoo work? |
88 |
> > |
89 |
> > Because you care about Gentoo. You care to see your work protected and |
90 |
> not |
91 |
> > another taking credit and profiting from your work. |
92 |
> > |
93 |
> > Without a Foundation per se, someone could take your work, say it was |
94 |
> there |
95 |
> > own. Potentially selling such and making a profit. The Foundation is |
96 |
> there to |
97 |
> > protect you, your work/contributions, etc. |
98 |
> > |
99 |
> > Also to make sure you are not sued personally for your work. Though most |
100 |
> FOSS |
101 |
> > software has disclaimer for such. By contributing to Gentoo per se, |
102 |
> Gentoo |
103 |
> > takes that liability from you. |
104 |
> > |
105 |
> > > I think that many Gentoo developers, especially foreigners, have |
106 |
> > > serious doubts about implications of being a Foundation member. Even if |
107 |
> > > elaborate US lawyers can claim otherwise, we're talking about local law |
108 |
> > > here, and for example I had enough of the law without having to wonder |
109 |
> > > about the implications of formal foreign non-profit corporation |
110 |
> > > membership. |
111 |
> > |
112 |
> > If you had a legal issue around FOSS who would you turn to? Does the EFF |
113 |
> or |
114 |
> > SLFC have an entity in your country? This is a problem any project would |
115 |
> face. |
116 |
> |
117 |
> I don't see how either of those arguments are related to me being |
118 |
> a Foundation member or not. After all, the Foundation protects *all* |
119 |
> Gentoo work, independently of whether a developer doing it is a member |
120 |
> or not, doesn't it? |
121 |
> |
122 |
> > > As long as there is no lawful reason to require |
123 |
> > > anyone to be a Foundation member to do X, I don't think we should |
124 |
> > > enforce that. And unless I'm mistaken, not even Trustees are legally |
125 |
> > > |
126 |
> > > required to be members of the Foundation (modulo current Bylaws): |
127 |
> > > | Directors need not be residents of New Mexico or members of |
128 |
> > > | the corporation unless the articles of incorporation or the bylaws |
129 |
> > > | so require. |
130 |
> > > |
131 |
> > > http://www.sos.state.nm.us/uploads/files/Corporations/ch53Art8.pdf |
132 |
> > |
133 |
> > That would mean if a Developer who opted out of Foundation membership |
134 |
> could |
135 |
> > still run and be elected as a Trustee. Which would likely give them |
136 |
> > membership, opt them back in. |
137 |
> |
138 |
> I don't see a strict reason to do that, nor I see a strict reason not |
139 |
> to do that. Just pointing out that lawfully membership could be |
140 |
> considered fully irrelevant. |
141 |
> |
142 |
> > > Single pool of voters |
143 |
> > > ===================== |
144 |
> > > |
145 |
> > > I agree that having two disjoint pools of voters for two important |
146 |
> > > boards running Gentoo might be bad. However, following the point made |
147 |
> > > above I don't think that Foundation membership should be relevant to |
148 |
> > > the ability to vote. |
149 |
> > > |
150 |
> > > Therefore, I think it would be best if both the Council and Trustees |
151 |
> > > were elected by active Gentoo developers, in a manner consistent with |
152 |
> > > how Council is elected nowadays. |
153 |
> > |
154 |
> > It could be best, but could also result in a insiders only club. |
155 |
> |
156 |
> Excuse me but how is the Foundation membership different? Foundation |
157 |
> members still have to be approved by Trustees. |
158 |
> |
159 |
> > > This removes the current Foundation members who are not developers from |
160 |
> > > the voter pool. I'm sorry but I believe it's more appropriate that |
161 |
> > > people who actively develop Gentoo (and have proven to understand its |
162 |
> > > the organizational structure via passing the quizzes) get a vote |
163 |
> > > in deciding how Gentoo is run. |
164 |
> > |
165 |
> > I think it is a big mistake to limit things to Developers only. I am not |
166 |
> > aware of any Developers with say a legal background. What if members of |
167 |
> the |
168 |
> > community do? Should they really be excluded? |
169 |
> > |
170 |
> > Developers do not always know best, and are not versed in all fields. |
171 |
> This is a |
172 |
> > close minded approach to only allowing a voice from within. Also what |
173 |
> does it |
174 |
> > say to the community? |
175 |
> > |
176 |
> > There could be users of Gentoo who have more experience than new |
177 |
> developers. |
178 |
> > Their experience or patronage matters not? Who cares what you develop if |
179 |
> no |
180 |
> > one uses it, it does not really matter does it? |
181 |
> |
182 |
> They can get recruited. It's not hard. Getting a developer status |
183 |
> (without commit access) mostly involves proving that you're accustomed |
184 |
> to organization matters of how Gentoo operates. |
185 |
> |
186 |
> Do you really think Gentoo users should start telling developers how |
187 |
> Gentoo should be operating without learning how it's operating right |
188 |
> now first? |
189 |
> |
190 |
> > > While I believe it's important to remember the history of Gentoo |
191 |
> > > and acknowledge past contributions to it, I don't think that solely |
192 |
> > > past contributions should imply the ability to decide (however |
193 |
> > > indirectly) how Gentoo is run nowadays. |
194 |
> > |
195 |
> > A day will come when you may not contribute anymore. Does that mean all |
196 |
> your |
197 |
> > past contributions immediately become worthless? Does that mean your |
198 |
> > experience in the project did not result in any wisdom you could share |
199 |
> with |
200 |
> > others? |
201 |
> |
202 |
> No. But it means that I'm no longer in position to tell others what to |
203 |
> do, or vote who the best candidate for Council/Trustee/etc. is. |
204 |
> |
205 |
> I don't mind past contributors having advisory roles for Gentoo. I do |
206 |
> mind having them vote on people when they no longer are interested in |
207 |
> directly participating in the complete developer community. |
208 |
> |
209 |
> > > Council, on the other hand, focuses on technical (and quasi-social) |
210 |
> > > matters. It's important for Council members to be capable of good |
211 |
> > > judgment both on technical and community matters, and being able to |
212 |
> > > provide resolutions that are beneficial to the community. The location |
213 |
> > > is pretty much irrelevant here, and the role could be considered |
214 |
> > > informal by many. |
215 |
> > |
216 |
> > Council also needs to work with Trustees to ensure such is not taking on |
217 |
> legal |
218 |
> > liability. |
219 |
> |
220 |
> I believe the legal liability concern is a rare enough issue for |
221 |
> Trustees to be involved rather when that is a possible case rather than |
222 |
> having them approve every step of everyone else. |
223 |
> |
224 |
> > > I have yet to see the final proposal to throw my vote but I already |
225 |
> > > start to dislike the direction it is heading towards. With no good |
226 |
> > > rationale, and no good problem statement it seems like a change for |
227 |
> > > the sake of changing things and/or replacing people. |
228 |
> > |
229 |
> > Keep something in mind. Trustees could, not saying they would, change |
230 |
> legal |
231 |
> > and structure aspects of Gentoo with no opposition. If you were not |
232 |
> happy, if |
233 |
> > you are not a member of the Foundation as it stands now. You could do |
234 |
> nothing |
235 |
> > legally, Nor could the council or anyone. |
236 |
> > |
237 |
> > Acting like the Foundation is just a steward is a misnomer. It is good |
238 |
> the |
239 |
> > Trustees are seeking feedback and approval but they are not legally |
240 |
> required |
241 |
> > to do such. Once elected they do have legal authority to enact their |
242 |
> will. |
243 |
> |
244 |
> Yes, I know that they can. And they also know that by doing this they |
245 |
> are going to lose many useful contributors. Gentoo can't exist without |
246 |
> people doing the work, even if the common mailing list complainers |
247 |
> finally get what they wanted and are satisfied. |
248 |
> |
249 |
> It's not perfect but I believe Gentoo could prevail. Maybe it'd even be |
250 |
> beneficial long-term, since it would let the developers actually doing |
251 |
> a lot of work to split from those who mostly talk. Pretty much getting |
252 |
> Gentoo back to the roots, as Daniel Robbins seen it. |
253 |
> |
254 |
> Of course, there's the trademark issue. It could end up in the 'FFmpeg |
255 |
> fiasco' where actual development would continue in a separate entity, |
256 |
> and Gentoo Foundation would just 'steal' their work and publish it as |
257 |
> the official Gentoo. |
258 |
> |
259 |
> -- |
260 |
> Best regards, |
261 |
> Michał Górny |
262 |
> <http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/> |
263 |
> |