From: Aaron Bauman <bman@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-nfp] Trustee nomination: Aaron Bauman (bman)
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 15:04:58 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180717190458.GC11692@monkey> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGfcS_ku7kkviXqUrrifU3oB6w5QH01iUucaL7vn4LQmdUEB0w@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3686 bytes --]
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 02:21:51PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 2:01 PM Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > Also, we would need to operate two NFPs when at this election
> > we only secured enough candidates to staff one ... if they are all
> > ranked above _reopen_nominations in the poll.
> >
>
> ++
>
> This just sounds like twice as many opportunities to get things wrong,
> and it splits our resources.
>
You didn't read my previous reply to Roy. It also does not split
resources. Plain and simple.
> > To follow on your example, there are several competing 2FA
> > solutions with differing feature sets. While Nitrokey may be
> > selected for <reasons> the comparative value assesment still
> > needs to be performed or the trustees would be neglecting their
> > duty by rubber stamping council decisions.
>
> Why would we think that the trustees would do any better a job at this
> than the Council? Why would the Council want to waste money? There
> is a limited pool of resources, and if the Council is making decisions
> like this I'd imagine most developers would vote to select people they
> trust to make these decisions.
>
No one said the council will do any better at this than the council and
once again read my reply to Roy. Why would this be a waste of money?
It is a technical decision and I shouldn't have called out a particular
vendor. Your paragraph is full of assumptions and no digestion of what
I wrote.
> If we went to an umbrella org then there is a good chance that the
> Council will end up making these kinds of decisions.
>
> Besides, why would we want multiple decision-making bodies, where one
> body can choose to invest in something, and then another body can
> ensure that all that investment is wasted by denying complementary
> investment? That could go either way.
>
It is not multiple decision making bodies. The council is leading and
the Foundation is providing. The only split is that of legal and
financial decision making for (hopefully) obvious reasons.
> > Such bylaws would make me nervous ... what happens if the new
> > legal entity has insuffcient funds to pay these people. I suppose it
> > just goes bankrupt, like any other legal entity.
>
> Honestly, I don't see any point in codifying random decisions in bylaws.
>
Which random decisions?
> Bylaws are supposed to be general principles we operate on. They
> don't codify individual operating decisions. Those decisions should
> be documented, but elsewhere.
>
Sure, by-laws can codify anything you want to set into statute. It
allows for enforcement and legal soundness.
> Also, we don't need to spin up a new legal entity just to change the
> bylaws. They can be changed at any time fairly easily actually,
> assuming the Trustees concur.
>
Of course we don't need a new entity to do that. It is just a by-product
of the course of action.
> That said, I'm all for paying people to do jobs that need to be done
> reliably when volunteers aren't cutting it (and historically, they
> haven't been). This is a big argument in favor of an umbrella,
> because there is an economy in splitting these costs across many orgs.
> But, if we were independent I'd rather pay a CPA to do the taxes
> properly/etc. And then we'd make sure that not a dime gets paid to
> anybody without the CPA knowing about it...
>
The sad part is, that if years hadn't gone by and it was done
incrementally over time this wouldn't be such a burden. Again, see my
reply to Roy regarding umbrellas.
> --
> Rich
>
--
Cheers,
Aaron
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-07-17 19:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-07-12 20:18 [gentoo-nfp] Trustee nomination: Aaron Bauman (bman) Michał Górny
2018-07-12 20:34 ` Aaron Bauman
2018-07-16 21:21 ` Aaron Bauman
2018-07-17 18:01 ` Roy Bamford
2018-07-17 18:18 ` Aaron Bauman
2018-07-18 19:34 ` Roy Bamford
2018-07-18 19:58 ` Rich Freeman
2018-07-18 20:25 ` Aaron Bauman
2018-07-18 20:43 ` Aaron Bauman
2018-07-17 18:21 ` Rich Freeman
2018-07-17 19:04 ` Aaron Bauman [this message]
2018-07-17 19:15 ` Rich Freeman
2018-07-17 19:29 ` Aaron Bauman
2018-07-17 20:43 ` Alec Warner
2018-07-17 20:59 ` Aaron Bauman
2018-07-17 21:16 ` Alec Warner
2018-07-17 21:42 ` Rich Freeman
2018-07-17 22:03 ` Aaron Bauman
2018-07-17 22:15 ` Alec Warner
2018-07-17 22:50 ` Aaron Bauman
2018-07-17 21:19 ` Rich Freeman
2018-07-17 22:08 ` Aaron Bauman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180717190458.GC11692@monkey \
--to=bman@gentoo.org \
--cc=gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox