Re: [gentoo-project] William Hubbs council manifesto 2018-2019

[Alec Warner]

On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 2:15 PM, M. J. Everitt <m.j.everitt@×××.org> wrote:

> On 17/06/18 19:07, Alec Warner wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 1:26 PM William Hubbs <williamh@g.o>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > My opinion though is we should give the trustees time to catch up
>> >
>>
>> How much time?  We're 14 years in, and Robin has been working on the
>> books for a few years I think.  Don't get me wrong - I appreciate the
>> work he is doing, but I'm not convinced it is a one-person project,
>> and it doesn't end when the past is caught up.
>>
>
> I'm fairly confident we can fix the current tax problems (in the end, its
> a problem we can solve with money, and we have some money.)
> I'm less convinced the non-profit yields any value over other
> alternatives, and so from an effort-basis I feel its necessary to wind down
> and replace
> with something else.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> > Once that happens, I think it is better to work with them to choose the
>> > future path since they own the Gentoo trademark, name, logo etc [1].
>> >
>>
>> Working with somebody isn't the same as deferring everything to them.
>>
>> The problem with leaving the fate of the Foundation entirely to the
>> Trustees is that there is a lot of selection bias at work.  Trustees
>> are a bunch of individuals selected for their interest in running a
>> non-profit (for the most part, simply volunteering for the post is
>> sufficient to be voted in).  Should we be surprised when they advocate
>> for continuing to run a non-profit?
>>
>
> I really don't think this is true. Its explicitly not true for me. I was a
> trustee because there were open slots and someone had to 'keep the lights
> on.'
> Other people who ran for the board have expressed similar sentiments. I am
> running again in the next election on a platform of dissolution (closing
> the foundation) which is again contrary to your argument. There is no point
> in continuing to run a non-profit that continues to nominally accrue risk
> with little or no upside. Eventually it will become so toxic that you will
> be unable to find anyone to run it (some may say this has already begun to
> happen.) This is evident partially by the board's reduction in numbers.
> Previously the board had 13 seats, then 7, then 5. I'm not superbly
> confident we will be able to fill 5 seats in the next election.
>
>
>> There is also no need to wait for the Foundation to fix everything
>> before working on a path forward.  Just as individuals can use their
>> own property to work on Gentoo-related projects, or donate their own
>> money to the Gentoo Foundation, so other entities can use their own
>> property to work on Gentoo-related projects, or donate their money to
>> the Foundation.
>>
>
> I think some of the conflict is a result of communication style (America v
> European) and also the internet-based communication methods we use to meet
> and converse with each other. I've often pitched something else (audio or
> video) but have never reached consensus. This isn't to discount the actual
> area of conflict (e.g. Finances) but how ones communicate ones ideas
> matters a fair bit.
>
> -A
>
>
>>
>> --
>> Rich
>>
>>
> Just to avoid confusion, Alex, are you talking about dissolving the
> organisation that is Gentoo Foundation, Inc. as a non-profit corporation,
> or completely eradicating the Board, Trustees and Officers such that the
> day-to-day organisational aspects of Gentoo either moves to the Council
> (*shudders*) or to another organisation entirely, with whatever baggage
> that ensues?!
>

I mean the New Mexico Non-profit corporation would be dissolved. If Gentoo
continued to want to own its trademarks and raise funds, those functions
would have to be moved elsewhere. This is typically where an umbrella (SPI,
SFLC, or similar) organization comes in handy; but I don't intend to be
prescriptive at this time in terms of what the next steps are. Obviously we
have to figure that out prior to dissolution (because the Articles of
dissolution specify where assets go.)

-A