1 |
The foundation was not consulted on this. As this concerns the |
2 |
foundation and it's stewardship of the Gentoo Distribution I find that |
3 |
concerning. I've also re-subject'd the thread to call it out as a |
4 |
topic. |
5 |
|
6 |
On 18-06-08 20:02:42, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: |
7 |
> Am Freitag, 8. Juni 2018, 19:44:00 CEST schrieb Andreas K. Huettel: |
8 |
> > Dear all, |
9 |
> > |
10 |
> > the Gentoo Council will meet again this sunday, 10 June 2018, 18:00 UTC on |
11 |
> > the #gentoo-council IRC channel. |
12 |
> > |
13 |
> > Please reply to this e-mail with agenda item proposals. |
14 |
> > |
15 |
> |
16 |
> I would like to put the following proposal on the agenda once more (clarified |
17 |
> and expanded): |
18 |
> |
19 |
> The Gentoo council shall directly contact "Software in the Public Interest |
20 |
> Inc." (SPI), with the intention of Gentoo becoming a SPI Associated Project. |
21 |
> The intention is for SPI to become an *additional* service provider of the |
22 |
> Gentoo developer community for Accepting Donations, Holding Funds, and Holding |
23 |
> Assets. The SPI project liaison shall be appointed by the Gentoo council. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> No transfer of funds or assets of any kind between SPI and the Gentoo |
26 |
> Foundation is stipulated (it would be the trustees' responsibility anyway), so |
27 |
> any (dys)function of the Gentoo Foundation has no impact on this new business |
28 |
> relationship. Equally, the business relationship with SPI shall have no impact |
29 |
> on the current function of the Gentoo Foundation. Essentially, the proposal is |
30 |
> that we start with an empty account at SPI. (I'll be happy to make the first |
31 |
> donation.) |
32 |
> |
33 |
|
34 |
Please stop stating that the Foundation is dysfunctional. You are not |
35 |
helping (either in real terms in working with the foundation or in |
36 |
promoting a divide between the two groups). I'd think that the lead of |
37 |
comrel wouldn't want to spread the hate. |
38 |
|
39 |
I'm not sure how you can say there'd be no transfer of anything when you |
40 |
are trying to represent the Gentoo Distribution in a business decision. |
41 |
We would be required to take action against any use of the Gentoo Name |
42 |
that does not follow the 'Gentoo name and logo usage guidelines'. |
43 |
|
44 |
> |
45 |
> SPI does not require exclusivity; the company explicitly allows that a project |
46 |
> is also sponsored by further parties. As long as SPI does not publicly |
47 |
> represent Gentoo, there is no conflict regarding trademarks. Most SPI |
48 |
> associated projects are unincorporated associations of individuals, as is the |
49 |
> Gentoo developer community electing the Gentoo Council. |
50 |
> |
51 |
|
52 |
This is good, though I wonder who the donations are going to (the name |
53 |
is important). |
54 |
|
55 |
> As additional bonus, we will be gaining that donations to SPI are tax- |
56 |
> deductible both in the US and in the EU. |
57 |
> |
58 |
> The precise procedure for appointing the project liaison is up to debate; a |
59 |
> draft proposal can be found below. |
60 |
> == |
61 |
> a) The project liaison is a Gentoo developer appointed by the Gentoo council, |
62 |
> and bound to follow its instructions. |
63 |
> b) Appointment of the project liaison is by vote of the majority of council |
64 |
> members (i.e. >=4 votes). The only way to unseat the project liaison is to |
65 |
> appoint a different project liaison by vote. |
66 |
|
67 |
I'd much rather this be a full vote by the developers, or to have |
68 |
something like a super-majority be needed to appoint someone to this |
69 |
important position. |
70 |
|
71 |
> c) Officers and trustees of the Gentoo Foundation are not eligible for |
72 |
> project liaison. |
73 |
|
74 |
Please give details as to why this is NEEDED. This would further drain |
75 |
the manpower of the foundation by removing those capable of helping it. |
76 |
|
77 |
> d) The restriction of c) can be lifted permanently by Gentoo council majority |
78 |
> decision only after the council, the Gentoo Foundation trustees, and the board |
79 |
> of the financial sponsor organization have come into agreement that |
80 |
> * the financial situation of the Gentoo Foundation has been sufficiently |
81 |
> clarified, |
82 |
|
83 |
I do not know why you require 100% of those 'voting' here to vote the |
84 |
same way is setting it up for failure. It also allows for any of the |
85 |
three parties to act against the best interests of the whole by voting |
86 |
no (they all have veto power). Two out of three voting yes would work |
87 |
better. |
88 |
|
89 |
> * any outstanding taxes have been determined and paid, and |
90 |
> * any further outstanding relevant business of the Gentoo Foundation, i.e., |
91 |
> with the IRS, has been concluded. |
92 |
|
93 |
What is the reasoning behind both of these requirements (I agree that |
94 |
they need to be done, but I wonder what they have to do with anything |
95 |
here). |
96 |
|
97 |
-- |
98 |
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire) |