| 1 |
On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 8:39 PM, Daniel Campbell <zlg@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Outsourcing the foundation won't really solve any of the problems being |
| 4 |
> discussed here, and adds the point of contention that (I would bet) many |
| 5 |
> of us have to outsourcing Gentoo things, e.g. GitHub, et al. Outsourcing |
| 6 |
> things gives outside parties influence for zero concrete contribution. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Well, this thread has gone so far off the rails that this really |
| 10 |
depends on how you define "any of the problems being discussed here" |
| 11 |
since at some point probably just about any concern anybody has with |
| 12 |
Gentoo has probably come up. :) |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I don't think outsourcing the financials/compliance side would impact |
| 15 |
Comrel governance, unless your proposed solution to Comrel governance |
| 16 |
was to put it under the Foundation, since that wouldn't exist in such |
| 17 |
a scenario. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
It would potentially have the effect of reducing the number of |
| 20 |
distinct governance bodies we have, which is a topic which has come |
| 21 |
up. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
But, I tend to be of the opinion that Gentoo's meta-structure and the |
| 24 |
Comrel situation should probably be treated as separate matters, even |
| 25 |
if there are some touchpoints. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I did actually find Alec's comment about SPI and Debian/etc |
| 28 |
interesting. I hadn't really given thought to what liability SPI has, |
| 29 |
if any, for the conduct of Debian, if Debian isn't really a separate |
| 30 |
legal entity. I'd think that if SPI owns their servers, and their |
| 31 |
servers are used to communicate things that are libelous, then SPI |
| 32 |
probably would have liability. It is probably worth looking at how |
| 33 |
they (and other projects) handle this concern if only to generate some |
| 34 |
ideas for us to consider, whether we ultimately go down the SPI road |
| 35 |
or not. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
One of the advantages of something like the SPI route is that they |
| 38 |
probably have standardized policies around compliance issues that we |
| 39 |
could just adopt wholesale, and they probably have professionals |
| 40 |
backing all of them up (such as lawyers focused on FOSS and community |
| 41 |
issues). |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
Now, as was pointed out an obvious disadvantage of going that route is |
| 44 |
that you do lose some autonomy. In fact once you give them any assets |
| 45 |
they can only give them back to "you" if you have a 501c3, because |
| 46 |
they are a 501c3. Of course, assuming you're happy with them they |
| 47 |
also give you the benefits of a 501c3 without the fuss of trying to |
| 48 |
achieve that yourself. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
-- |
| 51 |
Rich |
Archives