1 |
On 29/08/20 20:47, William Hubbs wrote: |
2 |
>> > Sound to me like you are an excellent candidate to join the Gentoo |
3 |
>> > Council? If so, contact Mgorny for pointers. |
4 |
|
5 |
> The functions being discussed in this thread belong to the |
6 |
> trustees (the board of directors for the foundation) [1]. Thhey are |
7 |
> definitely not part of the council's skill set [2]. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> mgorny and others are advocating disbanding the Gentoo foundation |
10 |
> and transfering all of Gentoo's assets to an organization such as the Software |
11 |
> Freedom Conservancy [3] and allowing the council to exist as it currently does. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> As a member of the council, I'll be the first to say I don't know |
14 |
> anything about trustee functions. For me, the question is, do we want to |
15 |
> control our own destiny as an organization or do we want to have another |
16 |
> organization control it in some way? To be honest, I do not have that |
17 |
> answer because I don't know how much control an umbrella organization |
18 |
> would try to exert, and since they would control our purse strings, I |
19 |
> don't know what the scope of control they would be able to exert is. |
20 |
|
21 |
Sounds to me, actually from many of the other posts in this list, that |
22 |
too many people don't understand the difference between a person, their |
23 |
role, and a post. |
24 |
|
25 |
(To give my favourite example, capitalism - at least the American form - |
26 |
tends to emphasise "profit for the shareholders". But many shareholders |
27 |
are either employees or pension fund members, who are severely damaged |
28 |
by this "search for profit". Actions taken to "protect the shareholder" |
29 |
often *damage* the owner of the shares!) |
30 |
|
31 |
Speaking from an English view of things here ... |
32 |
|
33 |
The over-arching legal authority here is presumably the Gentoo |
34 |
Constitution. This gives power to the trustees, but also limits their |
35 |
power. The trustees have no power to alter the constitution - that's |
36 |
down to the people who created it - us the wider gentoo community I |
37 |
suppose ... |
38 |
|
39 |
The trustees then *delegate* the daily management to the foundation, who |
40 |
*manage* the assets on behalf of the trustees and the constitution. The |
41 |
foundation is enTRUSTed with the assets of the constitution, to manage |
42 |
it in accord with the constitution. Any breach of that is a breach of |
43 |
TRUST, which is pretty serious legally. |
44 |
|
45 |
Should we as the constitution/trustees take our assets away from the |
46 |
foundation and give them to the SFC to manage, that now puts the SFC in |
47 |
place of the foundation, with the SAME trust and legal issues. They |
48 |
*must* keep our assets separate from everyone else's (including their |
49 |
own) and *must* return said assets should they cease operating. |
50 |
|
51 |
So, legally, whether it's the foundation, or the SFC, there shouldn't be |
52 |
any noticeable change. But it should result in a lot of cost saving, as |
53 |
the SFC's accountants will have more experience and be more efficient, |
54 |
and by sharing we reduce costs. The SFC could buy a mainframe (to which |
55 |
we chip in) to centralise hardware. Etc etc. But legally, WE OPT IN. |
56 |
They can't take our money and do it without asking. |
57 |
|
58 |
The big fly in the ointment I see here is the US's casual attitude to |
59 |
enforcing all this (and I've heard some horror stories from Canada too |
60 |
:-( I'm also involved in something exactly similar in the UK, and a lot |
61 |
of people are worried ... |
62 |
|
63 |
So from a legal point of view what's the problem? From an enforcement |
64 |
point of view if things go wrong, well yes I know there's a problem! |
65 |
|
66 |
Cheers, |
67 |
Wol |