Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o, "Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Questions for Gentoo Council nominees: Council demands on maintainers & council legal liability
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2019 08:05:10
Message-Id: 511fe4ea-05c6-a871-cc00-360cff7ac3ff@gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-project] Questions for Gentoo Council nominees: Council demands on maintainers & council legal liability by "Robin H. Johnson"
1 On 7/4/19 4:14 AM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
2 > I realize that there is only a short period left in the election, but
3 > I've been busy with IRL issues, and mgorny's trustee manifesto [1] ascribed
4 > something to the Council members that concerned me; there's one
5 > additional good question for the Council that I'll close with.
6 >
7 > 1. Points 1a&1c of mgorny's manifesto imply that the council can
8 > unilaterally prevent support of any given package in Gentoo, and
9 > basically remove the package from the distribution.
10 >
11 > This is despite any developers that may wish to support the package.
12 >
13 > What's your opinion of the council using this offensively against
14 > packages? As a hypothetical, say systemd-ng comes about, with an even
15 > worse opinionated choices than those presently in systemd. Should the
16 > council be able to force support for openrc & systemd stop?
17
18 Its definitely within the purview of the council to do it, but in most
19 cases Gentoo is about flexibility so you don't want to. There are
20 scenarios where you would have to consider it, though, e.g large impacts
21 on others work (project out of scope), security issues , etc
22 >
23 > 2. As an additional point, can you try to give your version of a simple
24 > statement on the legal liabilities that the Council as a whole, and
25 > the Council members as individuals, have for their actions?
26 >
27
28 Council is no legal entity, so there is no as a whole, the individual
29 legal liability is somewhat limited as there is no fiduciary duty etc
30 arising due to this; which means no negligence claims etc.. So basically
31 you're left with whatever else you can be sued for as an individual, but
32 you're in a more profiled position so it is possibly more likely that
33 you will face it by some angry internet people...
34
35
36 --
37 Kristian Fiskerstrand
38 OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
39 fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies