| 1 |
On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 03:49:52PM -0700, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 2:11 PM Aaron Bauman <bman@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 12:30:04PM -0700, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 8:20 PM Aaron Bauman <bman@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > Seems folks had ideas, but you (really we/Trustees) did not respond. Of |
| 7 |
> > course, it also seems many tried to divert the idea of spending any |
| 8 |
> > money without consulting Robin as the lead for finanances. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Yeah I think continuing the finances will help. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I believe at this point that the finances are in a state that other |
| 15 |
foundation members and Gentoo developers should not be concerned with |
| 16 |
submitting various requests. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> > |
| 20 |
> > For the record, Robin calcualted (IMHO, very well) what we could spend |
| 21 |
> > and what we couldn't. So, for those following this mail, please know |
| 22 |
> > that due diligence is completed before any funds are appropriated. Then |
| 23 |
> > and now. |
| 24 |
> > |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> I am also sad that we basically received no net new funding requests to the |
| 27 |
> Foundation. Everyone has ideas on how to spend money but no one is |
| 28 |
> executing anything. I think dillfridge was correct on that thread when he |
| 29 |
> said that the problem isn't necessarily money, but instead we lack the |
| 30 |
> people to execute on these ideas. We did the Nitrokey thing because people |
| 31 |
> did care and pushed that idea forward; getting financial approval for it |
| 32 |
> was straightforward |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
This, IMO, is due to the perception of the foundation not being in a |
| 36 |
stable position to entertain such requests. Additionally, I believe we, |
| 37 |
as a foundation, owe it to the electorate to delineate what type of |
| 38 |
requests are acceptable. For example, I don't believe we can currently |
| 39 |
fund someone as an employee (Robin, please correct me if needed). |
| 40 |
However, we can due other items such as fund conference attendance, pay |
| 41 |
for a particular contract, or donate funds to other organizations. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
If we can definitively state what is acceptable then I expect members to |
| 44 |
request such items. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
> I see two main problems: |
| 47 |
> 1) The main problem with efforts appears not to be a lack of money and |
| 48 |
> instead is a lack of leadership (e.g. someone pushing a project through.) |
| 49 |
> 2) The foundation has been reticent to hire people to do this work for two |
| 50 |
> reasons. |
| 51 |
> a) The Foundation has often not wanted employees, or contractors; this |
| 52 |
> is mostly due to a lack of D&O insurance. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
As stated above, we have other options vice hiring someone directly as |
| 55 |
an at-will or salaried employee. For instance, we could hire someone to |
| 56 |
produce a particular product or endstate for some software. The exact |
| 57 |
same as we have contracted tax support to a particular organization. |
| 58 |
This bypasses any D&O concerns, but IMO such concerns where D&O would |
| 59 |
become relevant are nil. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
> b) The Community has not been particularly receptive to paid vs unpaid |
| 62 |
> developers; we would need some method to manage this. |
| 63 |
> |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
Do you mean like a lottery or something to ensure there is no bias? If |
| 66 |
so, what about a method such as GSOC where proposals are voted on based |
| 67 |
on merit, ingenuinity, impact, etc? |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
-- |
| 70 |
Cheers, |
| 71 |
Aaron |
Archives