Re: [gentoo-project] Formally have Foundation oversee top level projects 1.1

[Michał Górny]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 14:01:43 -0600
Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@g.o> wrote:

> On 01/11/2017 01:40 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> >> Possible Solution:
> >>
> >>     Voting body:
> >>
> >> In order to solve this Gentoo needs to have a combined electorate,
> >> meaning those that would vote for Council would also vote for Trustees
> >> and visa-versa.  This would ensure that everyone’s needs are represented.
> >>
> >> The combined voting body would be able to opt out of voting, however,
> >> opting out of voting means opting out of voting globally.  The reasoning
> >> behind this is so that you can’t opt out of voting for one body but not
> >> the other, as doing so would cause a split in the voting pool.
> >
> > This doesn't answer the most important question of all: who the voting
> > body will be? I doubt people care about being able to opt-out of
> > voting. They do care, however, for being unable to vote for some
> > legal or otherwise external reasons.
> >
>
> The voting body would be active developers, meaning those that passed
> what used to be the staff quiz.  Commit access or not.

That sounds good to me but you'd have to get agreement on Foundation
end (since you're cutting their votes) and change Bylaws. But certainly
a direction worth considering.

> > So, this whole thing looks really bad to me. It looks to be based on
> > some (accidental or intentional) misunderstanding what Council is,
> > combined with some degree of conflict of roles in Board (Trustees).
> >
>
> I see council as it is now as an overreach of what it was intended to
> be, or even should be.

Are you considering evolution a problem? Things like that usually
happen for a reason. I don't see a reason to cut things down back to
where they were unless you have a good reason for that.

> > As I said previously, the defining attributes of Trustees would be
> > knowledge of the law and related affairs. Why does that suddenly imply
> > that Trustees are required to be capable of handling project
> > leadership?
>
> I believe I did state that the trustees would still be limited to
> Legal/proj running, but this gives them the 'official' ability to reach
> down and change things if needed.  As it is now, officially, we'd have
> to ask council for a change dealing with a legal issue if it started
> because of something technical.

Not really. As pointed out already, Trustees have absolute power.
As long as they don't abuse it, I don't see a problem with Trustees
reaching down below whenever they find it necessary for legal reasons.
And I'm pretty sure Council wouldn't mind that either.

> > Why do you insist on giving additional power to people who have
> > already have a well-defined purpose? Why are you forcing us to be lead
> > by people who offer to do legal stuff, instead of the people we trust
> > to lead Gentoo?
>
> I don't like the false dichotomy you offer.  I personally don't see this
> as an overreach of power, or even a granting of power that was not
> already there.  All this does is document things as they already are,
> from a more legal sense.

No, that's not correct. You are removing the Council from between
Comrel, PR and Infra.

For Comrel, this means that the Council is no longer the appeal body
for Comrel decisions. For Infra, this somehow makes me think Infra will
no longer follow the 'directions' set by Council, and instead -- for
some reason -- jump straight to the Board. For PR, I'm not even sure
what this causes.

What I see here, is that Board suddenly gets a few more
responsibilities. Now, what happens if the Board makes a decision that
violates the CoC or the law? Do we appeal the decision to the Board
itself? Or do we have to sue Gentoo Foundation?

> > Therefore, I'd like to propose an another model, which is pretty much
> > what we have now, possibly with some clarifications.
> >
> > For fans of fancy diagrams:
> >
> >             Board/Trustees (Foundation)
> >                     |
> >                  Council
> >                     |
> >            all other projects in Gentoo
> >
> >
> > As I see it, it's a pretty straightforward and clean structure. We have
> > two organizational bodies: Council and Board/Trustees (I don't really
> > see a reason to rename it).
> >
> > The duty of the Board/Trustees is to handle legal affairs. It is also
> > on the top of organizational structure with the power to override any
> > decision *if it goes against the law / CoC / etc.* In other words, it
> > has the highest power but must use it responsibly, and does not need to
> > be normally engaged in Gentoo affairs.
> >
> > The duty of the Council is to handle all affairs within Gentoo. All
> > projects are below Council, and Council is the final 'normal' appeal
> > for all decisions. Unlike some beliefs, its role is not limited to
> > technical matters.
> >
> > This provides a good split of responsibilities for a non-profit. On one
> > hand, we have a 'compliance board' (== Board/Trustees) that handles
> > the legal affairs but doesn't get in the way of the distribution unless
> > it is absolutely necessary, and we have an 'executive board' (==
> > Council) that handles the distribution.
> >
> > Obviously, this also meets the necessity of different qualities. Board
> > members/Trustees need to be fluent in the laws and/or finances. Council
> > members need social skills mostly, and possibly some technical skills
> > to be able to interact with the community. We no longer give extra
> > power to someone just because nobody else wants to do the legal work.
> >
> > I don't see why would anybody claim this not to be a normal or
> > beneficial structure. It is definitely more clear than what you're
> > proposing, and definitely less likely for conflicts of interest. It
> > provides a consistent decision appeal possibility, with a dedicated
> > body to handle appeals regarding CoC/law.
> >
>
> I see this as workable, not my preferred solution, but acceptable.  I
> would personally rather have non-technical things and infra things
> outside of Council, but like I said, this can work.

Moving things outside of Council would require another administrative
body to have a nice vertical structure with additional appeal body.

Furthermore, as I pointed out, QA is there to handle the purely
technical affairs. Council provides a higher level of appeal
and decision making that combines the social and technical aspects,
and I think it actually focuses on the former these days.

As I mentioned on IRC, the USE=gtk* fiasco is the best example. If you
attempt to solve technical problems without considering the social
aspect, you create policies that are not respected. To run Gentoo you
have to actually focus on the social aspect, and find a way to make
people agree with one another.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>