| 1 |
I'm separating out this email to contain just the responses to various |
| 2 |
questions and concerns. I'll send another separate thread with the |
| 3 |
updated text. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
1. External control of Gentoo. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
I don't think there's much stopping us from investigating this as a |
| 8 |
possible option in the future but I think that this is mostly orthogonal |
| 9 |
to this proposal. Whatever the new 'board' would do would would just be |
| 10 |
reduced if we do choose external control. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
SPI has been mentioned a couple of times and if anyone wants to |
| 13 |
contact them to work something out to propose to the foundation I don't |
| 14 |
think there's anything stopping you :D |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
2. Every developer becoming a member of foundation. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
First, 'developer' in this sense means what used to mean 'staff or |
| 19 |
developer'. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Rich0's proposal to make this optional (I'd like to default to |
| 22 |
enabled) seems like a good solution. We'd still have one voting pool |
| 23 |
but simply allow people to opt out. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
3. US Embargo. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
We are already a US organization, that, in my non-lawyer mind, means |
| 29 |
we already have to deal with this. Just because a developer is a member |
| 30 |
of the project and not directly under the foundation does not mean the |
| 31 |
foundation can ignore US embargo policy. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
That said, I don't really think this has been a problem in the past and |
| 34 |
will likely not be a problem in the future. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
4. Why is the existing model bad? (more info) |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
We have two voting pools that can be divergent in their goals. What |
| 39 |
would happen if the foundation wanted x and the council wanted !x? |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
5. We should have a BDFL (more or less) |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
I don't agree with this personally and it is not the goal of this |
| 44 |
proposal to move to that model. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
6. Liability increase by having all devs be members of the Foundation. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
William summed it up pretty well, 'working on the project makes you |
| 49 |
and the project more liable than being a member'. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
7. Exclusion of the community. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
I don't think this is as much a problem as people think. The |
| 54 |
definition of 'developer' changed about a year ago to mean what used to |
| 55 |
be 'staff or developer'. So anyone who is what used to be called staff |
| 56 |
(which I think people applying to the foundation should probably be |
| 57 |
considered) would have representation (through their vote). |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
8. Merging the voting pools. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
The process for this will be better defined in the next version of the |
| 62 |
proposal. |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
9. Members of the 'board' having conflicts with their job. |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
I'm, not sure about this as it's likely case by case. But I |
| 67 |
personally don't see this causing much more issues than what is already |
| 68 |
caused by working on an open source project. |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
-- |
| 71 |
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire) |
Archives