Re: [gentoo-project] Groups under the Council or Foundation: the structure & processes thereof

[Matthew Thode]

On 10/12/2016 06:30 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> To make a radical suggestion, I'm wondering if it might be considered to
> put some organizational group responsibilities under the Foundation
> instead, while to establish others formally of the Council.
> In some parlance, they might be considered as appointed/'hired' staff or
> committee members of the management bodies, while the bodies themselves
> remain elected.
>
I don't think they should be considered 'hired', they are still
volunteers.  I say this for Legal reasons mainly.

> I've used 'contributors' as a descriptor below, because the CoC should
> be applies to both developers & users & non-users alike: all
> participants in any Gentoo-associated media, mailing lists, IRC
> channels, message boards etc.
>
> I've also tried to avoid using our existing term 'project', because some
> of the group responsibilities do not fit well into the project structure
> of GLEP39.
>
> I joined Gentoo in 2003, and a lot of the groups were already in
> existence, whilst only a few came later.
> - PR, Devrel, Infra are some of the oldest groups inside Gentoo:
>   they were listed in GLEP-4 as of 2003/06/30, as pre-existing entities
>   within the distribution. GLEP-4 made the groups them into
>   top-level-projects.
> -- Recruiters were an offshoot from the original Devrel:Newdev sub-project
> -- QA is also present in that document, but bears little resemblance to
>    the original group.
> - Foundation's origins (2004, 2007 all-new) are in ensuring that the
>   distribution is organizationally (legally & financial) sound.
> - Council's origins (2006, GLEP39) are in handling global issues and
>   those that cross GLEP39-project boundaries, both to ensure that the
>   distribution is technically sound.
>
> The establishment of the Council & GLEP39 mostly placed all of the
> existing groups as reporting to the Council, and therein problems have
> ultimately arisen. As noted by the fact that Devrel's mandate wasn't
> formally renewed.
>
> The responsibilities of some of the older groups can & do cross the
> technical/organizational boundaries, whilst others fall clearly into one
> side.
> - Infra gets sponsorship & Foundation funds to ensure hosting & services
>   keep running for the distribution's needs. Legal compliance that what
>   we run complies with laws.

Should be run by Foundation I feel, given the monetary and legal
requirements.

> - PR promotes the distribution (via the banners for conferences,
>   merchandise), trademark usage questions often come here.

Similar to infra but less technical.

> - QA is a technical function, and clearly belongs to the Council.
>   However it's enforcement powers suggest that it might not be just a
>   GLEP39-project.

Ya, probably not a glep39 project, but should be directly under
council's control, so a subproject of council.

> - ComRel falls more into the side of organizational than technical:
> -- CoC issues with contributors

Given the specifically non-technical nature and the legal implications I
feel that this should be under foundation.

> - Recruiters have historically functioned mostly to ensure that new
>   contributors seeking to become developers are technically sound, and
>   to a lesser degree that they are a social fit for the distribution.
>
Given that technical knowledge is the primary focus and social secondary
I think this should be a subproject of council.

> So how do we improve things?
> 1. Move some of the groups, to the Foundation.
> 2. Clearly define&change their rules of group formation.
> 3. By accepting roles/responsibilities in these groups, a contributor
>    MUST agree to uphold strong principles (eg, rules for employees in an
>    organization are stricter/more-binding than those of customers, and
>    strongly derived from federal/state laws & regulations).
>
> Anybody should be able to apply to join the groups, but their joining
> should be vetted by some level: The council members (possibly in
> collaboration with the Foundation trustees) might wish to appoint, for
> limited terms, group leaders and/or members. It's also possible the
> group leaders in themselves might have a role in suggesting new members
> to Council or the Foundation for approval.
>

As far as protection (liability) goes, we'd be loosing some of it (but
have a gain in protection 'in the works' as well)).  This is my main worry.

I think a bad actor could be brought before comrel (under foundation)
under the normal CoC violation rules (remove privileges or in extreme
cases remove them entirely).

Here's how the trustees vote on things.

As a group, the Trustees each have an equal vote to decide upon issues
outlined in the tasks above. A majority vote (3 of 5) is required for
all decisions. The trustees must uphold the principles of the Gentoo
Foundation, its bylaws, and help to maintain a good reputation for the
Foundation.

For the CoC, that should primarily be created by Comrel and ratified by
both the Foundation (Trustees) and Council.

Now, as for dilfridge's concerns I'll try and address them here.

I think our current trustees are both active and available within
Gentoo.  That this has not been the case in the past I hope is a thing
of the past.

The foundation page is accurate, NeddySeagoon is still president as
we've put out a call for someone willing to be president.

I do not think the Trustees need to have the same electorate as council,
given the Foundation's specific lack of need for devship.

-- 
-- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)