| 1 |
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 4:26 PM, Daniel Robbins <drobbins@××××××.org> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> My point is this -- the organizational structure that exists, exists. It's |
| 4 |
> for everyone's benefit if those who do not like the organizational structure |
| 5 |
> leave the project and do their own thing, under a different organizational |
| 6 |
> structure, and those that do stay, do support it as it is intended to |
| 7 |
> function so that it can be the best it can be. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
What if "the best it can be" simply isn't good enough? That is the |
| 10 |
concern here. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
If I thought that the system that puts the board responsible for |
| 13 |
finances in charge of everything else was sustainable I'd just work |
| 14 |
within that system. I'd just encourage the Council to run for Trustee |
| 15 |
slots and all would be well, and I'd probably have run for a Trustee |
| 16 |
position last year again. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
However, there are real problems with this because the |
| 19 |
skills/interests of those capable of running the distro vs the |
| 20 |
Foundation don't overlap well. And honestly I'm not sure anybody is |
| 21 |
really capable of running the Foundation in its current state, at |
| 22 |
least not who is inclined to do so or has the time to do so. That |
| 23 |
isn't a knock on the Trustees - it is just pointing out that they have |
| 24 |
quite a hole to dig themselves out of. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> Anyone who really isn't behind the trustees and the NFP system should leave, |
| 27 |
> because that is the system we have and will continue to have. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
This assumes that this is something impossible to change, and that |
| 30 |
makes no sense. Other FOSS projects have restructured into |
| 31 |
umbrella-based models, and there are surely other models that might |
| 32 |
also work. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
For all the talk of ivory towers around here the ones suggesting |
| 35 |
having the Trustees be in charge seem to be ones trying to get |
| 36 |
everybody who disagrees to leave. You're actually the second person |
| 37 |
to suggest that I do so, though the other was not made publicly. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
The Foundation has been around for quite a while. It has had MANY |
| 40 |
turnovers in the Trustees. Many of them have no doubt been capable. |
| 41 |
And yet in this time we've had the corporate registrations expire |
| 42 |
once, a few terms with not all the slots filled, and the latest news |
| 43 |
seems to be that nobody can find any evidence that anybody has filed |
| 44 |
the legally-required annual tax forms (which was news to me because |
| 45 |
when I was on the Trustees I'm pretty sure I had been told that they |
| 46 |
were being filed). |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
IMO the blame is not in the Trustees themselves, but that the approach |
| 49 |
just isn't a good fit for Gentoo. I don't blame those who set it up |
| 50 |
either, because I don't think anybody would have realized how it would |
| 51 |
have turned out in the end, and there weren't a lot of alternative |
| 52 |
models back then. I think that people step into the role of Trustee |
| 53 |
or Treasurer intending to get things sorted out, and then find that it |
| 54 |
is a huge black hole of time demands that they just can't keep up |
| 55 |
with, until they leave. Maybe they'll advance things while they're in |
| 56 |
the role, but it never seems to be enough. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
If we're going to stay in the NFP business then we need to come to |
| 59 |
grips with the effort required and actually make it sustainable. |
| 60 |
Otherwise we're just playing games with a legal entity until somebody |
| 61 |
gets around to calling the whole thing into question. Granted, that |
| 62 |
might never happen since we're small potatoes, but nobody can promise |
| 63 |
that so it is a risk. |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
-- |
| 66 |
Rich |
Archives