1 |
Dnia 9 kwietnia 2018 06:39:22 CEST, zlg <zlg@g.o> napisał(a): |
2 |
>On Sun, Apr 08, 2018 at 11:42:01PM -0400, Virgil Dupras wrote: |
3 |
>> On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 20:29:27 -0700 |
4 |
>> zlg <zlg@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
>> |
6 |
>> > Why should a group -- who holds no legal, social, or practical |
7 |
>> > responsibility -- be trusted to lead the efforts of an |
8 |
>organization? |
9 |
>> |
10 |
>> Since Gentoo's CoC is strongly based on Debian, maybe we could look |
11 |
>at Debian's constitution for clues on this and ask ourselves why it |
12 |
>says in section 9 [1]: |
13 |
>> |
14 |
>> > An organisation holding assets for Debian has no authority |
15 |
>regarding |
16 |
>> > Debian's technical or nontechnical decisions, except that no |
17 |
>decision |
18 |
>> > by Debian with respect to any property held by the organisation |
19 |
>shall |
20 |
>> > require it to act outside its legal authority. |
21 |
>> |
22 |
>> Maybe that this type of separation of concerns worked well for them? |
23 |
>Maybe it can work well for Gentoo? |
24 |
>> |
25 |
>> Regards, |
26 |
>> Virgil Dupras |
27 |
>> |
28 |
>> [1] https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution#item-9 |
29 |
>> |
30 |
> |
31 |
>Separating concerns may work, but not without a real, legally binding |
32 |
>contract that both parties consent to and abide by. Otherwise, the |
33 |
>Foundation takes on all the legal and financial risk and gets nothing |
34 |
>for it. |
35 |
|
36 |
And that is what it's called not-for-profit. They volunteer to help others and want nothing in return. |
37 |
|
38 |
> |
39 |
>An affirmation from the two parties is not a binding contract. I would |
40 |
>support one if it was equitable and enforceable, i.e. not GLEP 39. If |
41 |
>the relationship is reduced to business, then the Council should offer |
42 |
>something in return. |
43 |
|
44 |
|
45 |
-- |
46 |
Best regards, |
47 |
Michał Górny (by phone) |