From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KavYr-0006kO-Lk for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 03 Sep 2008 16:50:29 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9C882E04C4; Wed, 3 Sep 2008 16:50:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smarthost02.mail.zen.net.uk (smarthost02.mail.zen.net.uk [212.23.3.141]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 562F2E04C4; Wed, 3 Sep 2008 16:50:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [62.3.120.141] (helo=spike) by smarthost02.mail.zen.net.uk with esmtpsa (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1KavYo-0001G9-S9; Wed, 03 Sep 2008 16:50:27 +0000 Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 17:50:18 +0100 From: Roy Bamford Subject: Re: [gentoo-nfp] RE: [gentoo-council] Foundation by laws: new Article V To: gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org, gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <48BDBB35.9060704@gentoo.org> (from rich0@gentoo.org on Tue Sep 2 23:16:21 2008) X-Mailer: Balsa 2.3.25 Message-Id: <1220460625.3014.0@spike> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Originating-Smarthost02-IP: [62.3.120.141] X-Archives-Salt: 69f4d6d8-3e89-4213-8411-5769f900fefe X-Archives-Hash: ab0e77ee865a3ab422d735034972a876 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Richard,=20 I've seen fmccors reply, let me have a got too.=20 On 2008.09.02 23:16, Richard Freeman wrote: > Roy Bamford wrote: > > The three remaining trustees were also nominated to stand for > election=20 > > for the council. Had they all accepted and been elected to the > council,=20 > > today we would be in the position of having trustees being a subset > of=20 > > council. That would have totally destroyed the council/foundation > split=20 > > that was one of the reasons the two bodies were created. > >=20 > > We need rules to stop that situation from occuring. > >=20 >=20 > Is this the case? That we need to stop the council/trustees from > overlapping? Is it true that the council/foundation split was one of > the reasons the two bodies were created? It wasn't that simple - I'll add some history further down. >=20 > My understanding is that the reason we have two bodies is so that > people > can contribute to either the council and/or the trustees based on > their > enthusiasm or ability to contribute, without being required to > contribute to both. Also - due to the foundation being a US > corporation > it is likely the case that we can't have non-US-residents holding > board > positions. So, the split is a practical matter - not a matter of > principle per se. There have been a number of non US citizen trustees over the years. I'm the only one at the moment. Three of the original 13 trustees were=20 non-US citizens. There are some roles that are more difficult for a non=20 US citizen to perform, like treasurer, which requires dealing with=20 cheques. >=20 > I wasn't seriously involved back when the trustees were created so I=20 > won't presume to argue that I really know all the reasons for it =20 > being a separate body. However, I don't think that really matters -=20 > the only thing that matters is if we think it should be forced to be=20 > such today. The two bodies were created at different times - I was not a developer=20 at the time so some of this is hearsay ... The Gentoo Foundation Inc was created on 14th May 2004 (ref Articles of=20 Incorporation) as a part of the process of Daniel Robbins (our founder)=20 extracting himself from Gentoo. Daniel held the post of Chief Archietect and pretty much ran gentoo as=20 a benevolent dictator. He also had a business orgainsation known as=20 Gentoo Technologies Inc which owned Gentoos trademarks and IPR. As part of Daniels leaving, the Foundation was set up and the Gentoo=20 Technologies Inc trademarks and IPR transferred to it. (Thats legally=20 documented too.) The intent of the foundation is stated in the=20 introduction to the Foundation Charter.=20 http://www.gentoo.org/foundation/en/ Its clear it was intended to be separate from the technical part of=20 Gentoo.=20 At this time, technical leadership of Gentoo was left to the Top Level=20 Project leads. It was not yet the council - that came later. The council was created by GLEP 39=20 http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0039.html from that it appears=20 that the GLEP was created on 01-Sep-2005 and adoped on 09-Feb-2006,=20 nearly two years after the creation of the Foundation. It follows that the Foundation was created to replace Gentoo=20 Technologies Inc, leaving the old (beneth Daniel) technical leadership=20 untouched and the council came into being as a solution to the=20 increasing number of top level projects some time later. In a nutshell, we have two bodies today because its always been that=20 way. Gentoo Technologies became the Forundation and the top level=20 project leads became the council. >=20 > In my opinion the benefits of joint council/trustee membership > outweigh=20 > the downside. However, I'm sure things will go on fine either way -=20 > I'll trust the trustees/council to make the right decision. I think thats a somewhat simplistic view of the world. In the legal/ business environment that the Foundation operates in we cannot trust to=20 luck and we should not trust individuals to do 'the right thing'. Often=20 different groups have different views of what the 'right thing' is. As I have explained the two bodies were created at different times to=20 solve different problems. I would venture to guess that there was no=20 thought given to creating a more normal corporate structure for Gentoo=20 when Daniel departed. Now back to your point. I am convinced that the two bodies should=20 staffed by separate individuals as they serve two different purposes=20 and represnet two different (but overlapping) groups. I agree that the=20 groups could be merged into a more usual corporate structure but=20 only by a deliberate act by both groups (or their leaders). It would be=20 wrong to permit one group to *accidently* be lead by a subset of the=20 other. - --=20 Regards, Roy Bamford (NeddySeagoon) a member of gentoo-ops forum-mods treecleaners trustees -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAki+wFEACgkQTE4/y7nJvatUSQCg1vfZ6aHTa8asMTz6xXQZ8cTo UJAAmwQkbU/HHVkfppJVdhAUltqxUWOg =3DQUK1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----