Re: [gentoo-project] Groups under the Council or Foundation: the structure & processes thereof

[Matthew Thode]

On 10/13/2016 11:01 AM, Roy Bamford wrote:
> On 2016.10.13 00:30, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>> TL;DR: move comrel, infra, PR to Foundation. Have strict(er)
>> application
>> of policies to them in line with their powers.
>>
> [snip good stuff]
>
> Changing our metastruture towards a more normal corporate
> structure will make the delegation of authority/responsibility
> clearer, especially outside the USA. I think that's a good thing.
> I live outside the USA, so maybe I'm biased.
>
> There must be a reason why every other corporation follows
> one structural model and Gentoo has another.
> Its not useful to go into in this thread, its sufficient to
> recognise that we are where we are and need to work towards
> where we want to be.
>
> The "two headed monster" corporate structure works as
> long as we are all good friends and communicate well.
> It fails when someone in 'the distro' screws up an the first
> the Foundation gets to know of it is a writ delivered to our
> snail mail address.
>
> There is a far worse scenario for the individuals (outside
> of the officers and trustees of the Foundation) involved.
> A legal action may name project members 'jointly and
> severally'. Then we get to discussing if the project members
> were acting on behalf of the Foundation or not.
> This is the same discussion as who picks up the bill.
>
> I support the normalising of our corporate structure but
> recognise that its a lot of admin work for all involved that
> will not directly benefit our code base.
>

Yes, I see this as moving things into a more normal setup.  That this
topic comes up so often has to mean something.  IMO, dividing Gentoo
between 'admin' and 'developer' makes sense, but that means, in my mind,
moving infra, pr and comrel under the foundation and keeping recruiters
largely under the council (I'll go into that in another thread).

-- 
-- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)