Re: [gentoo-project] Social Contract clean-up

[Alec Warner]

On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 4:26 PM, Daniel Robbins <drobbins@××××××.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 1:40 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 2:38 PM, Daniel Robbins <drobbins@××××××.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > No, you are misrepresenting the actual authority of Trustees. They have
>> > actual, real authority over the project as opposed to imagined authority
>> > that you seem to appeal to.
>> >
>>
>> They have the ability to destroy the Foundation, certainly, and cause
>> a lot of fuss.  However, the Trustees are generally reasonable so I
>> don't expect this to happen.
>
>
> My point is this -- the organizational structure that exists, exists. It's
> for everyone's benefit if those who do not like the organizational
> structure leave the project and do their own thing, under a different
> organizational structure, and those that do stay, do support it as it is
> intended to function so that it can be the best it can be.
>

I appreciate this sentence, I feel like its the most honest sentence you've
sent thus far.


>
> Anyone who really isn't behind the trustees and the NFP system should
> leave, because that is the system we have and will continue to have. It is
> not appropriate to make ominous predictions of what might happen if the
> trustees actually exercise the authority they have absolutely every legal
> right -- and frankly, obligation to the members -- to do.
>

> I can tell you right now that these ominous predictions give the
> impression that certain developers are co-opting the normal functioning of
> the trustees through threats and intimidation via FUD, and that is not OK.
> It's politics and power games. So I would encourage you to not participate
> in that.
>

In running a business, sometimes decisions must be made when we don't know
the outcome. No one *knows* what will happen (we are not mind readers.)
However, when making risky decisions, its important to consider the
ramifications of said decisions. Sure, the outcome is not known; but its
*likely* that, based on conversations I have had with individual
contributors, that a significant number of contributors would leave if this
happened. Saying we should not take that into consideration while making
decisions is not a reasonable thing to ask; IMHO. Its not "blackmail" or
"co-opting". Its a risky choice to make, and I haven't seen a board even
come *close* to making it.

I think the trustees in general value the "community" and "contributors"
more than they value other things; I suspect these are different to your
values (or you think that most people would stay after a re-org, and you
could be right!)


>
> I am not close to current trustees or council, and I have no "side" in
> this battle other than fighting for the proper functioning of Gentoo. I am
> just calling things as I see them.
>

If folks wanted change they can:

1) Join the foundation.
2) Hold a meeting of the members.
3) Pass whatever resolutions or bylaws they wanted by full member vote.

OR

1) Join the foundation.
2) Nominate a trustee they trust to drive their agenda (including
themselves)
3) Vote for trustees on the board.

I haven't see anyone do either (or even try) precisely because I don't
think its the foundation that holds all the cards here. The value isn't in
"Gentoo" the name, the value is in the contributors and the work they do.
This is *why* the council holds all the power (being the elected
representatives of all the contributors) and not the Foundation (regardless
of actual law.)

-A


> -Daniel
>