[gentoo-nfp] Agenda item: Formalize Gentoo's org structure

[gentoo-nfp] Agenda item: Formalize Gentoo's org structure

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2287 bytes --]

Gentoo has been known to be a two headed entity for a while.  While the
fact is that only one of the heads has legal standing to be called
Gentoo, the other head has been doing most of the technical work.
Unfortunately having two heads means that there can be fighting between
them.  In order to finally put the matter to some rest I seek to define
Gentoo's org structure.

Currently, legally, it only consists of the following:
1. foundation members
2. trustees
3. officers (don't have to be foundation members or trustees)

I wish to extend that to the following.
1. foundation members
2. trustees
3. officers (don't have to be foundation members or trustees)
3.1 infra members (or at least the lead)
3.2 comrel members (or at least the lead)
3.3 council members

Infrastructure has a clearly defined role in Gentoo.  Namely that of
managing foundation infrastructure resources.  Bringing those members
under the foundation's umbrella formalizes this.  Infra has previously
been fairly nebulous as to who directs them (having been directed by
council, trustees and comrel).

Comrel has the clear analog of being the HR (human relations).  HR
is three to protect the business from human related infighting.  Comrel
was previously under the direction of the council, primarily for
historical reasons (the foundation was not well staffed or run until
recently).  I thank the council for managing this.

Council is supposed to be the technical leadership within Gentoo, over
the last decade or so this responsibility has ballooned to encompass
things out side this scope.  This seeks to clearly define the powers of
the council to that of technical leadership.


One of the drawbacks of this is that being an officer means being an
'organ' of the business, meaning that some of the current members may
have conflicts with their current job.  To this I ask 'Is what you are
doing now not vital?  If it is doesn't that make you an organ (even if
not explicitly stated as such)?'

One of the good things about this (other than clearly defining roles and
boundaries) is that it allows council members to server as Trustees.
This would require a bylaw change, but has been something often
complained about.

-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Agenda item: Formalize Gentoo's org structure

[Luca Barbato]

On 09/04/2018 19:24, Matthew Thode wrote:
> Gentoo has been known to be a two headed entity for a while.  While the
> fact is that only one of the heads has legal standing to be called
> Gentoo, the other head has been doing most of the technical work.
> Unfortunately having two heads means that there can be fighting between
> them.  In order to finally put the matter to some rest I seek to define
> Gentoo's org structure.
> 

The structure is quite simple:

- a money-managing entity with the task of collecting donations and
paying for activities

- an informal organization, with an elective council acting as steering
committee, doing stuff that makes people willing to donate money so the
informal organization keeps delivering nice stuff.

The Debian people aren't members by default of Assoli or SPI(or any of
the many money collectors on-behalf-of they have.

It is the nth times that you keep suggesting something that ultimately
gets (mis)interpreted as a way for the foundation to meddle with the
Gentoo organizational processes.

lu


PS: Comrel is independent from the council beside in case of appeal,
please stop repeating something that is not correct.

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Agenda item: Formalize Gentoo's org structure

[Alec Warner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3465 bytes --]

On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 6:24 AM, Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@gentoo.org>
wrote:

> Gentoo has been known to be a two headed entity for a while.  While the
> fact is that only one of the heads has legal standing to be called
> Gentoo, the other head has been doing most of the technical work.
> Unfortunately having two heads means that there can be fighting between
> them.  In order to finally put the matter to some rest I seek to define
> Gentoo's org structure.
>
> Currently, legally, it only consists of the following:
> 1. foundation members
> 2. trustees
> 3. officers (don't have to be foundation members or trustees)
>
> I wish to extend that to the following.
> 1. foundation members
> 2. trustees
> 3. officers (don't have to be foundation members or trustees)
> 3.1 infra members (or at least the lead)
> 3.2 comrel members (or at least the lead)
> 3.3 council members
>

People in 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 are already Gentoo developers and yet some
developers choose not to associate with the Foundation.

If I was a council member, could I continue to be a council member and not
be a member of the Foundation? If not, it could appear like this is an
exclusionary measure (e.g. in order to be a council member you must also be
willing to be a Foundation member.) If Foundation membership is optional,
it looks similar to the status quo (some of comrel / Council / etc are
Foundation members, some are not.)


>
> Infrastructure has a clearly defined role in Gentoo.  Namely that of
> managing foundation infrastructure resources.  Bringing those members
> under the foundation's umbrella formalizes this.  Infra has previously
> been fairly nebulous as to who directs them (having been directed by
> council, trustees and comrel).
>

The short answer is Infra is directed by Council for project matters and
Trustees for legal / money matters.
I've been working on drawing up this policy explicitly in recent times.


>
> Comrel has the clear analog of being the HR (human relations).  HR
> is three to protect the business from human related infighting.  Comrel
> was previously under the direction of the council, primarily for
> historical reasons (the foundation was not well staffed or run until
> recently).  I thank the council for managing this.
>
> Council is supposed to be the technical leadership within Gentoo, over
> the last decade or so this responsibility has ballooned to encompass
> things out side this scope.  This seeks to clearly define the powers of
> the council to that of technical leadership.
>
>
> One of the drawbacks of this is that being an officer means being an
> 'organ' of the business, meaning that some of the current members may
> have conflicts with their current job.  To this I ask 'Is what you are
> doing now not vital?  If it is doesn't that make you an organ (even if
> not explicitly stated as such)?'
>
> One of the good things about this (other than clearly defining roles and
> boundaries) is that it allows council members to server as Trustees.
> This would require a bylaw change, but has been something often
> complained about.
>

The above is a bit vague to me. My reading is:

We continue to have a Foundation, with members (now expanded in this
proposal), the board still meets monthy and makes decisions, the board is
elected by the members every yeah. The board directs Infra and Comrel? The
board does not direct the council?

Is that the summary?

-A


>
> --
> Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4597 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Agenda item: Formalize Gentoo's org structure

[Alec Warner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2517 bytes --]

On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 6:24 AM, Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@gentoo.org>
wrote:

> Gentoo has been known to be a two headed entity for a while.  While the
> fact is that only one of the heads has legal standing to be called
> Gentoo, the other head has been doing most of the technical work.
> Unfortunately having two heads means that there can be fighting between
> them.  In order to finally put the matter to some rest I seek to define
> Gentoo's org structure.
>
> Currently, legally, it only consists of the following:
> 1. foundation members
> 2. trustees
> 3. officers (don't have to be foundation members or trustees)
>
> I wish to extend that to the following.
> 1. foundation members
> 2. trustees
> 3. officers (don't have to be foundation members or trustees)
> 3.1 infra members (or at least the lead)
> 3.2 comrel members (or at least the lead)
> 3.3 council members
>
> Infrastructure has a clearly defined role in Gentoo.  Namely that of
> managing foundation infrastructure resources.  Bringing those members
> under the foundation's umbrella formalizes this.  Infra has previously
> been fairly nebulous as to who directs them (having been directed by
> council, trustees and comrel).
>
> Comrel has the clear analog of being the HR (human relations).  HR
> is three to protect the business from human related infighting.  Comrel
> was previously under the direction of the council, primarily for
> historical reasons (the foundation was not well staffed or run until
> recently).  I thank the council for managing this.
>
> Council is supposed to be the technical leadership within Gentoo, over
> the last decade or so this responsibility has ballooned to encompass
> things out side this scope.  This seeks to clearly define the powers of
> the council to that of technical leadership.
>
>
> One of the drawbacks of this is that being an officer means being an
> 'organ' of the business, meaning that some of the current members may
> have conflicts with their current job.  To this I ask 'Is what you are
> doing now not vital?  If it is doesn't that make you an organ (even if
> not explicitly stated as such)?'
>
> One of the good things about this (other than clearly defining roles and
> boundaries) is that it allows council members to server as Trustees.
> This would require a bylaw change, but has been something often
> complained about.
>

Would you change GLEP 39 here and get a vote of the developer-base to
change the metastructure?

-A


>
> --
> Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3259 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Agenda item: Formalize Gentoo's org structure

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 9:01 AM, Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> Would you change GLEP 39 here and get a vote of the developer-base to change
> the metastructure?
>

IMO if we ever do get around to figuring out what the contributors to
Gentoo actually want, we should probably give them more than a yes/no
option.  We use condorcet voting - it costs us nothing to give people
as many options as people care to define, because there is no
strategic voting advantage to diluting options with condorcet as long
as the ballot doesn't get so long that people can't even rank it.

I'd suggest doing that BEFORE spending a ton of effort refining
things.  Maybe ask people where they want things to go in a
non-binding way, at at least look at the top few candidates.

Then go ahead and refine the proposed path forward (hopefully with
both Council/Trustee backing, but if they want to propose separate
options they could), and then put that up for a binding vote.

If we think this is a good idea I'd suggest that we just let people
write up proposals on the wiki (anybody can write one or more
proposals as long as at least one dev or foundation member backs it -
if there is abuse then limit to one each), then these get copied to
locked-down pages prior to voting, and each proposal is assigned a
unique ID for the ballot.  Voting starts, people can discuss or try to
sway votes on the lists, and then we get the ranked tally.  This would
be non-binding and could be used by Council/Trustees/others as useful
feedback so that at least we're not all waving our hands in the air
about what "everybody" wants.

We would still have to settle who gets to vote.  IMO it should just be
devs, but honestly the number of non-dev Foundation members isn't that
large at present and it probably wouldn't change the outcome (keeping
things this way is important, because if we ever do end up in a
situation where the two bodies want to go in different directions we
have an even bigger mess).

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Agenda item: Formalize Gentoo's org structure

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5428 bytes --]

On 18-04-09 08:58:03, Alec Warner wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 6:24 AM, Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> 
> > Gentoo has been known to be a two headed entity for a while.  While the
> > fact is that only one of the heads has legal standing to be called
> > Gentoo, the other head has been doing most of the technical work.
> > Unfortunately having two heads means that there can be fighting between
> > them.  In order to finally put the matter to some rest I seek to define
> > Gentoo's org structure.
> >
> > Currently, legally, it only consists of the following:
> > 1. foundation members
> > 2. trustees
> > 3. officers (don't have to be foundation members or trustees)
> >
> > I wish to extend that to the following.
> > 1. foundation members
> > 2. trustees
> > 3. officers (don't have to be foundation members or trustees)
> > 3.1 infra members (or at least the lead)
> > 3.2 comrel members (or at least the lead)
> > 3.3 council members
> >
> 
> People in 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 are already Gentoo developers and yet some
> developers choose not to associate with the Foundation.
> 
> If I was a council member, could I continue to be a council member and not
> be a member of the Foundation? If not, it could appear like this is an
> exclusionary measure (e.g. in order to be a council member you must also be
> willing to be a Foundation member.) If Foundation membership is optional,
> it looks similar to the status quo (some of comrel / Council / etc are
> Foundation members, some are not.)
> 
> 

Yes, I thought I mentioned in the email that officers (thus all of
secition 3) do not have to be members or turstees.

> >
> > Infrastructure has a clearly defined role in Gentoo.  Namely that of
> > managing foundation infrastructure resources.  Bringing those members
> > under the foundation's umbrella formalizes this.  Infra has previously
> > been fairly nebulous as to who directs them (having been directed by
> > council, trustees and comrel).
> >
> 
> The short answer is Infra is directed by Council for project matters and
> Trustees for legal / money matters.
> I've been working on drawing up this policy explicitly in recent times.
> 
> 

I'd extend that to be 'comrel for HR matters' as well, but sgtm.

> >
> > Comrel has the clear analog of being the HR (human relations).  HR
> > is three to protect the business from human related infighting.  Comrel
> > was previously under the direction of the council, primarily for
> > historical reasons (the foundation was not well staffed or run until
> > recently).  I thank the council for managing this.
> >
> > Council is supposed to be the technical leadership within Gentoo, over
> > the last decade or so this responsibility has ballooned to encompass
> > things out side this scope.  This seeks to clearly define the powers of
> > the council to that of technical leadership.
> >
> >
> > One of the drawbacks of this is that being an officer means being an
> > 'organ' of the business, meaning that some of the current members may
> > have conflicts with their current job.  To this I ask 'Is what you are
> > doing now not vital?  If it is doesn't that make you an organ (even if
> > not explicitly stated as such)?'
> >
> > One of the good things about this (other than clearly defining roles and
> > boundaries) is that it allows council members to server as Trustees.
> > This would require a bylaw change, but has been something often
> > complained about.
> >
> 
> The above is a bit vague to me. My reading is:
> 
> We continue to have a Foundation, with members (now expanded in this
> proposal), the board still meets monthy and makes decisions, the board is
> elected by the members every yeah. The board directs Infra and Comrel? The
> board does not direct the council?
> 
> Is that the summary?

Not quite, I didn't have time to type it all out, because sleep.

Council (and comrel) would continue to exist as it currently does.
The currently voted in people would be offered the positions.
Anyone not wishing to stay will be replaced by that body's appointment
mechanism (voting for the council).

I'd suggest that at least the leads for each body would need to be
confirmed, since council has no lead it means they all need confirmed
(I'd rather this not be the case).  The Trustees would only appoint
someone in the absence of a candidate taking their place (in order to
continue operation of the project).

(my opinion)  All current members of all the mentioned bodies would be
offered the same position (even ones who seem to hate me).  Confirmation
would be mostly a rubber stamp process.

As far as 'appeals of decisions goes', while I'd love to be able to
promise something (like we'll always back council on technical matters
or comrel on HR matters), but we can't.  Sometimes there are legal or
practical reasons we cannot (too much money to rent all the compute
resources available so we can test all the packages all the ways or if
we are somehow directed to do something illegal).

(my opinion) in practice we'd leave the council alone in their
decisions (maybe something once a decade? seems about right).  We'd do
the same with comrel, much how I don't think council has overturned a
comrel decision in memory I don't think the trustees would.

-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Agenda item: Formalize Gentoo's org structure

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2595 bytes --]

On 18-04-09 09:23:17, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 9:01 AM, Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > Would you change GLEP 39 here and get a vote of the developer-base to change
> > the metastructure?
> >
> 
> IMO if we ever do get around to figuring out what the contributors to
> Gentoo actually want, we should probably give them more than a yes/no
> option.  We use condorcet voting - it costs us nothing to give people
> as many options as people care to define, because there is no
> strategic voting advantage to diluting options with condorcet as long
> as the ballot doesn't get so long that people can't even rank it.
> 
> I'd suggest doing that BEFORE spending a ton of effort refining
> things.  Maybe ask people where they want things to go in a
> non-binding way, at at least look at the top few candidates.
> 
> Then go ahead and refine the proposed path forward (hopefully with
> both Council/Trustee backing, but if they want to propose separate
> options they could), and then put that up for a binding vote.
> 
> If we think this is a good idea I'd suggest that we just let people
> write up proposals on the wiki (anybody can write one or more
> proposals as long as at least one dev or foundation member backs it -
> if there is abuse then limit to one each), then these get copied to
> locked-down pages prior to voting, and each proposal is assigned a
> unique ID for the ballot.  Voting starts, people can discuss or try to
> sway votes on the lists, and then we get the ranked tally.  This would
> be non-binding and could be used by Council/Trustees/others as useful
> feedback so that at least we're not all waving our hands in the air
> about what "everybody" wants.
> 
> We would still have to settle who gets to vote.  IMO it should just be
> devs, but honestly the number of non-dev Foundation members isn't that
> large at present and it probably wouldn't change the outcome (keeping
> things this way is important, because if we ever do end up in a
> situation where the two bodies want to go in different directions we
> have an even bigger mess).
> 

A more 'positive' aclimation from the community (devs and non-dev
foundation members) would be nice.  I'd be good if there was some sort
of forum where voters can ask questions of each proposal as well.

I'd love to generally follow GLEP 39, but can't make promises because
GLEP 39 only apply to the org strucure at or below the level of Council.
At least that's how I see it working at this point.

-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Agenda item: Formalize Gentoo's org structure

[Michał Górny]

W dniu pon, 09.04.2018 o godzinie 05∶24 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
napisał:
> Gentoo has been known to be a two headed entity for a while.  While the
> fact is that only one of the heads has legal standing to be called
> Gentoo, the other head has been doing most of the technical work.
> Unfortunately having two heads means that there can be fighting between
> them.  In order to finally put the matter to some rest I seek to define
> Gentoo's org structure.

Currently, legally, it only consists of the following:
> 1. foundation members
> 2. trustees
> 3. officers (don't have to be foundation members or trustees)
> 
> I wish to extend that to the following.
> 1. foundation members
> 2. trustees
> 3. officers (don't have to be foundation members or trustees)
> 3.1 infra members (or at least the lead)
> 3.2 comrel members (or at least the lead)
> 3.3 council members
> 
> Infrastructure has a clearly defined role in Gentoo.  Namely that of
> managing foundation infrastructure resources.  Bringing those members
> under the foundation's umbrella formalizes this.  Infra has previously
> been fairly nebulous as to who directs them (having been directed by
> council, trustees and comrel).
> 
> Comrel has the clear analog of being the HR (human relations).  HR
> is three to protect the business from human related infighting.  Comrel
> was previously under the direction of the council, primarily for
> historical reasons (the foundation was not well staffed or run until
> recently).  I thank the council for managing this.
> 
> Council is supposed to be the technical leadership within Gentoo, over
> the last decade or so this responsibility has ballooned to encompass
> things out side this scope.  This seeks to clearly define the powers of
> the council to that of technical leadership.
> 
> 
> One of the drawbacks of this is that being an officer means being an
> 'organ' of the business, meaning that some of the current members may
> have conflicts with their current job.  To this I ask 'Is what you are
> doing now not vital?  If it is doesn't that make you an organ (even if
> not explicitly stated as such)?'
> 
> One of the good things about this (other than clearly defining roles and
> boundaries) is that it allows council members to server as Trustees.
> This would require a bylaw change, but has been something often
> complained about.
> 

Matthew, I'm not sure where to start.

Maybe I should start by apologizing for the length of this mail.
I really hate to waste your time having to read all of this but in this
case I believe things have gone too far just to leave things half-
answered or risk misinterpretation.


I find this proposal outrageous.  It is a clear attack on Gentoo
developers' right to self-govern.  While I wouldn't call Gentoo an exact
democracy, your proposal sounds like bureaucrat dictatorship.  I will
detail on it later on.


But before that, I would like to ask why do you keep pushing forward
a proposal that has seen so much negative feedback?  And why do you try
to push it via gentoo-nfp when you are perfectly aware that the previous
discussions on gentoo-project have brought much negative feedback?  Are
you trying to avoid this feedback?

Do you believe that the minor changes you've made meet the expectations
of all the developers who did not like your initial proposal?  Do you
believe in it so much that you do not feel it appropriate to ask for
their opinion on the updated proposal?

Do you believe that the developers have suddenly changed their mind
and are ready to abandon self-governing themselves in favor of
dictatorship of bureaucrats?  Do you believe that the recent attacks of
William L. Thompson Jr., Daniel Campbell or Daniel Robbins have achieved
that goal?  Or maybe the gentoo-dev posting restrictions?  Do you know
that for sure?

Or are you just trying to use sheer force of repetition?  Are you going
to push the same proposal over and over again until people agree with it
just to be done with hearing about it?  Or just until they get
frustrated enough and stop replying?  Then you could claim you had no
negative feedback on 15th reiteration of the same proposal.


But let's get to the details.

Your proposal -- once again -- makes Trustees the highest-level
governing body of Gentoo and reduces Council to technical matters.  This
is against GLEP 39 which clearly states that Council is responsible for
all global decisions and as far as I'm aware is the most recent policy
defining the role of Council.  Unless you have a strong reason to
believe that this policy has been illegally forced upon Gentoo, you are
not 'formalizing' anything but attempting to change well-established
metastructure and outright lying to the community that the current state
is undefined.

I believe that Trustees can't be the highest governing body of Gentoo
for a number of reasons. I will enumerate those I can think of below:


1. Trustee elections are not even half as democractic as Council
elections.

With no 'reopen nominations', with the ability to accept Trustees
without a vote or for existing Trustees to appoint new Trustees for
missing slots, and finally with low interest in developers becoming
Trustees, this is effectively 'Trustee seat giveaway' and not
an election.  This is already bad enough for governing the Foundation
and I am fully against extending this to governing the whole of Gentoo.

And if you believe that reducing the power of Council will suddenly
convince developers to increase their interest in becoming Trustees, you
are wrong, for reasons outlined in further points.


2. Bad Trustee work... increases their chances of re-election.

Given that each new Trustee takes legal responsibility about the state
of Foundation, he/she is directly endangered by repercussions of any
problems within the Foundation, including problems caused by previous
Trustees.  As far as I'm aware, we hadn't established any clear way of
new Trustees protecting themselves against this, and most of the new
candidates aren't really capable of suing previous board 'just in case'
as Kristian suggested.

As a result, if Trustees leave Foundation in a bad state (which has been
the case so far), then a number of candidates is going to refuse
the nomination because they do not want to take responsibility for
mistakes of their predecessors.  And this goes on recursively.  At this
point, even if Trustees finally managed to finish IRS as they claim
they'll do, I personally would still have serious doubt whether I could
really trust things are fully solved.


3. Trustees have direct control over their electorate.

Who votes for Trustees?  Foundation members.  And who appoints
and removes Foundation members?  Trustees, of course.  So we're talking
about giving away governing the whole distribution to people who
directly decide who can vote for them, and who can't, and do that
in rather arbitrary way.

Before somebody claims that Council is in the same situation -- not
exactly.  The Council doesn't directly interfere with recruitment
or retirement -- it only takes care of appeals.  Not to mention that
the rules for becoming a developer are far more precise than rules for
becoming a Foundation member.


4. Not everyone can be a legal Foundation representative.

This has been the argument a lot of people mentioned.  Some of our
developers simply can't legally be an Officer, not to mention Trustee
because of their employment or other legal positions.  Your proposal
unjustly prevents them from having any governing position.


5. You are conflating governing and bureaucracy.

What we have right now is two disjoint bodies: Council which is elected
as representatives of developers, and Trustees who are responsible for
dealing with the bureaucracy.  With your proposal, developers are now
partially governed by bureaucrats for no real reason except... we need
bureaucrats, and bureaucrats want to rule us.

What you're doing here is blocking competent people who were doing a
good job dealing with non-technical matters on the Council just because
they do not have the necessary skills or experience to do the Trustee
work.  And on the other hand, giving power to people who may not be
trusted developer representatives just because they claim they're going
to take care of the bureaucracy.


6. Trustees have serious problems dealing with their own work.

Let's be honest.  Trustees haven't been exactly the perfect caretakers
of legal and financial matters.  Even skipping the tax problems, let's
talk about copyright problems.  Rich Freeman has started the work on
solving them long time ago.  Then Trustees were responsible for it
and did not manage to do anything except for copying the Rich's text
with minor changes (also made by him) to Wiki.

The whole copyright effort started again when I established the 'joint
venture'.  Which was pretty much a nice way of saying 'we will do most
of it for you because otherwise it will never happen'.  But sure, that
was a complex problem.

Just take a look at their meeting logs and see how many items keep being
moved from month to month with no action taken:

https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Meetings

At some point, you start thinking that Trustees are putting more effort
in trying to replace Council than in actually doing the things they were
elected to do.  Do you really think they will be doing a better job with
more responsibilities at hand?


7. Who will oversee the Trustees?

Right now, the Council handles all the global decisions and appeals
in Gentoo.  However, if Council goes rogue and starts working against
the goals of Gentoo, Trustees can intervene. If Trustees become the
highest authority for decisions and appeals, who is going to intervene?


That's all I can think of now.  But I think that's 7 reasons too many
for Trustees to claim any direct leadership position.  Trustees have
a clearly defined role in serving and protecting Gentoo.  Extending that
to exercising daily power in leading Gentoo is not going to be good
for the community, and certainly it is not going to be fair to other
developers.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Agenda item: Formalize Gentoo's org structure

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 14553 bytes --]

On 18-04-09 18:57:27, Michał Górny wrote:
> W dniu pon, 09.04.2018 o godzinie 05∶24 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
> napisał:
> > Gentoo has been known to be a two headed entity for a while.  While the
> > fact is that only one of the heads has legal standing to be called
> > Gentoo, the other head has been doing most of the technical work.
> > Unfortunately having two heads means that there can be fighting between
> > them.  In order to finally put the matter to some rest I seek to define
> > Gentoo's org structure.
>
> Currently, legally, it only consists of the following:
> > 1. foundation members
> > 2. trustees
> > 3. officers (don't have to be foundation members or trustees)
> >
> > I wish to extend that to the following.
> > 1. foundation members
> > 2. trustees
> > 3. officers (don't have to be foundation members or trustees)
> > 3.1 infra members (or at least the lead)
> > 3.2 comrel members (or at least the lead)
> > 3.3 council members
> >
> > Infrastructure has a clearly defined role in Gentoo.  Namely that of
> > managing foundation infrastructure resources.  Bringing those members
> > under the foundation's umbrella formalizes this.  Infra has previously
> > been fairly nebulous as to who directs them (having been directed by
> > council, trustees and comrel).
> >
> > Comrel has the clear analog of being the HR (human relations).  HR
> > is three to protect the business from human related infighting.  Comrel
> > was previously under the direction of the council, primarily for
> > historical reasons (the foundation was not well staffed or run until
> > recently).  I thank the council for managing this.
> >
> > Council is supposed to be the technical leadership within Gentoo, over
> > the last decade or so this responsibility has ballooned to encompass
> > things out side this scope.  This seeks to clearly define the powers of
> > the council to that of technical leadership.
> >
> >
> > One of the drawbacks of this is that being an officer means being an
> > 'organ' of the business, meaning that some of the current members may
> > have conflicts with their current job.  To this I ask 'Is what you are
> > doing now not vital?  If it is doesn't that make you an organ (even if
> > not explicitly stated as such)?'
> >
> > One of the good things about this (other than clearly defining roles and
> > boundaries) is that it allows council members to server as Trustees.
> > This would require a bylaw change, but has been something often
> > complained about.
> >
>
> Matthew, I'm not sure where to start.
>
> Maybe I should start by apologizing for the length of this mail.
> I really hate to waste your time having to read all of this but in this
> case I believe things have gone too far just to leave things half-
> answered or risk misinterpretation.
>
>
> I find this proposal outrageous.  It is a clear attack on Gentoo
> developers' right to self-govern.  While I wouldn't call Gentoo an exact
> democracy, your proposal sounds like bureaucrat dictatorship.  I will
> detail on it later on.
>
>
> But before that, I would like to ask why do you keep pushing forward
> a proposal that has seen so much negative feedback?  And why do you try
> to push it via gentoo-nfp when you are perfectly aware that the previous
> discussions on gentoo-project have brought much negative feedback?  Are
> you trying to avoid this feedback?
>

I keep pushing forward with this because feedback I've received from
others has been constructive towards this goal.  I keep pursuing this
because it's the job of the president of the foundation to advance the
foundation.  I this case advancing the foundation means clarifying roles
and relationships between the different bodies.  I push for this
particular case as it's the one that makes the most sense from the
foundation's (business) viewpoint.

> Do you believe that the minor changes you've made meet the expectations
> of all the developers who did not like your initial proposal?  Do you
> believe in it so much that you do not feel it appropriate to ask for
> their opinion on the updated proposal?
>

I intend to take rich0 up on his offer and allow everyone (devs and
non-dev foundation members) to generate proposals to metastructure changes
be voted upon.

> Do you believe that the developers have suddenly changed their mind
> and are ready to abandon self-governing themselves in favor of
> dictatorship of bureaucrats?  Do you believe that the recent attacks of
> William L. Thompson Jr., Daniel Campbell or Daniel Robbins have achieved
> that goal?  Or maybe the gentoo-dev posting restrictions?  Do you know
> that for sure?
>

I think this mischaracterizes what I'm trying to work toward.  The
reality is that the foundation (business) can reject something someone
does in the name of Gentoo.  As I stated in my proposal I think things
would continue as they have been, just with a more explicit governing
structure (aka very little to no meddling).

As far as what you characterize as attacks goes, I don't think they were
necessarily attacks (other than drobbins's action that saw access
suspended) but somewhat misguided attempts to help.  I think they may
have some valid points (not all points, some) but I don't like the way
they want about bringing them up.

> Or are you just trying to use sheer force of repetition?  Are you going
> to push the same proposal over and over again until people agree with it
> just to be done with hearing about it?  Or just until they get
> frustrated enough and stop replying?  Then you could claim you had no
> negative feedback on 15th reiteration of the same proposal.
>

Until I get voted out, or am convinced otherwise I will do what I feel
is best for the foundation.  That is what my position entails.

>
> But let's get to the details.
>
> Your proposal -- once again -- makes Trustees the highest-level
> governing body of Gentoo and reduces Council to technical matters.  This
> is against GLEP 39 which clearly states that Council is responsible for
> all global decisions and as far as I'm aware is the most recent policy
> defining the role of Council.  Unless you have a strong reason to
> believe that this policy has been illegally forced upon Gentoo, you are
> not 'formalizing' anything but attempting to change well-established
> metastructure and outright lying to the community that the current state
> is undefined.
>
> I believe that Trustees can't be the highest governing body of Gentoo
> for a number of reasons. I will enumerate those I can think of below:
>

GLEP 39 is not legally binding.  This proposal would make glep 39 need
changes (mainly that there would be a governing body above council).  At
that point glep 39 could possibly be made into a bylaw.

>
> 1. Trustee elections are not even half as democractic as Council
> elections.
>
> With no 'reopen nominations', with the ability to accept Trustees
> without a vote or for existing Trustees to appoint new Trustees for
> missing slots, and finally with low interest in developers becoming
> Trustees, this is effectively 'Trustee seat giveaway' and not
> an election.  This is already bad enough for governing the Foundation
> and I am fully against extending this to governing the whole of Gentoo.
>
> And if you believe that reducing the power of Council will suddenly
> convince developers to increase their interest in becoming Trustees, you
> are wrong, for reasons outlined in further points.
>

Unfortunately we have not had the turnout we always with to have (for
nominees or voters).  Also, as this is a business things are not
necessarily always democratic (as much as we've tried to make them be).

> 
> 2. Bad Trustee work... increases their chances of re-election.
> 
> Given that each new Trustee takes legal responsibility about the state
> of Foundation, he/she is directly endangered by repercussions of any
> problems within the Foundation, including problems caused by previous
> Trustees.  As far as I'm aware, we hadn't established any clear way of
> new Trustees protecting themselves against this, and most of the new
> candidates aren't really capable of suing previous board 'just in case'
> as Kristian suggested.
> 
> As a result, if Trustees leave Foundation in a bad state (which has been
> the case so far), then a number of candidates is going to refuse
> the nomination because they do not want to take responsibility for
> mistakes of their predecessors.  And this goes on recursively.  At this
> point, even if Trustees finally managed to finish IRS as they claim
> they'll do, I personally would still have serious doubt whether I could
> really trust things are fully solved.
>

D&O insurance is an option, just a very expensive one.  That was the
first task I undertook when I was voted in/joined.  Also, if no one
steps up and tries to clean up it'll just go on (as you mention).  I
intend to clean this up.

>
> 3. Trustees have direct control over their electorate.
>
> Who votes for Trustees?  Foundation members.  And who appoints
> and removes Foundation members?  Trustees, of course.  So we're talking
> about giving away governing the whole distribution to people who
> directly decide who can vote for them, and who can't, and do that
> in rather arbitrary way.
> 
> Before somebody claims that Council is in the same situation -- not
> exactly.  The Council doesn't directly interfere with recruitment
> or retirement -- it only takes care of appeals.  Not to mention that
> the rules for becoming a developer are far more precise than rules for
> becoming a Foundation member.
>

As mentioned earlier, the Foundation is a business.  In practice we've
tried to avoid removal of members as much as possible.

> 
> 4. Not everyone can be a legal Foundation representative.
> 
> This has been the argument a lot of people mentioned.  Some of our
> developers simply can't legally be an Officer, not to mention Trustee
> because of their employment or other legal positions.  Your proposal
> unjustly prevents them from having any governing position.
>

Yes, it is the biggest drawback.  I'm not sure how they are allowed to
be what in effect is an officer though (council members are in effect
officers, even if not explicitly so, at least in my view).

>
> 5. You are conflating governing and bureaucracy.
>
> What we have right now is two disjoint bodies: Council which is elected
> as representatives of developers, and Trustees who are responsible for
> dealing with the bureaucracy.  With your proposal, developers are now
> partially governed by bureaucrats for no real reason except... we need
> bureaucrats, and bureaucrats want to rule us.
>
> What you're doing here is blocking competent people who were doing a
> good job dealing with non-technical matters on the Council just because
> they do not have the necessary skills or experience to do the Trustee
> work.  And on the other hand, giving power to people who may not be
> trusted developer representatives just because they claim they're going
> to take care of the bureaucracy.
> 

I think you are putting words in my mouth.

>
> 6. Trustees have serious problems dealing with their own work.
>
> Let's be honest.  Trustees haven't been exactly the perfect caretakers
> of legal and financial matters.  Even skipping the tax problems, let's
> talk about copyright problems.  Rich Freeman has started the work on
> solving them long time ago.  Then Trustees were responsible for it
> and did not manage to do anything except for copying the Rich's text
> with minor changes (also made by him) to Wiki.
> 
> The whole copyright effort started again when I established the 'joint
> venture'.  Which was pretty much a nice way of saying 'we will do most
> of it for you because otherwise it will never happen'.  But sure, that
> was a complex problem.
> 
> Just take a look at their meeting logs and see how many items keep being
> moved from month to month with no action taken:
> 
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Meetings
> 
> At some point, you start thinking that Trustees are putting more effort
> in trying to replace Council than in actually doing the things they were
> elected to do.  Do you really think they will be doing a better job with
> more responsibilities at hand?
>

I'd like you to restrict the time period of your attacks against the
trustees to the last 2 years, which have been frustrating, but
productive.

As far as who's been doing the work.  I agree that the council (and
foundation) members have been doing a lot of work, particularly in the
copyright area.  Keep in mind that rich0 is a member of the foundation
as well.  I wish we had more capable people in the foundation doing this
work but no one seems to want to step into that role but only do the
work outside of the foundation's view then dump it in their laps.

I wasn't aware it was you who established the 'joint venture', iirc K_F
even told me it was my responsibility to schedule meetings because it was
my idea :P

> 
> 7. Who will oversee the Trustees?
> 
> Right now, the Council handles all the global decisions and appeals
> in Gentoo.  However, if Council goes rogue and starts working against
> the goals of Gentoo, Trustees can intervene. If Trustees become the
> highest authority for decisions and appeals, who is going to intervene?
>

The same argument works for whatever the 'top body' ends up being, but
there are two options we have right now (as in you can invoke it now).

The 'general resolution' as I believe antarus mentioned would be a good
choice (as decisions still have to be legal of course).  Our bylaws
even have something like this already (section 3.9, 3.12).  Not the
best approximation, but could be reworked possibly.

The second option would be to recall the trustee(s) (section 5.6).  I
don't think this option exists for the council.

>
> That's all I can think of now.  But I think that's 7 reasons too many
> for Trustees to claim any direct leadership position.  Trustees have
> a clearly defined role in serving and protecting Gentoo.  Extending that
> to exercising daily power in leading Gentoo is not going to be good
> for the community, and certainly it is not going to be fair to other
> developers.
> 

--
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Agenda item: Formalize Gentoo's org structure

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 788 bytes --]

>>>>> On Mon, 9 Apr 2018, Matthew Thode wrote:

> Yes, it is the biggest drawback. I'm not sure how they are allowed
> to be what in effect is an officer though (council members are in
> effect officers, even if not explicitly so, at least in my view).

Please stop claiming this. Council members aren't officers of the
foundation, the same way as members of the Debian technical committee
aren't officers of SPI.

Also, who are the foundation's officers is defined by section 6.1 of
the bylaws. Especially, officers are elected by the board of trustees.
The council is neither elected by the trustees, nor are council
members even required to be members of the foundation.

(I am ready to withdraw from my foundation membership if that should
be necessary to clarify my status.)

Ulrich

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Agenda item: Formalize Gentoo's org structure

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1119 bytes --]

On 18-04-09 21:11:55, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, 9 Apr 2018, Matthew Thode wrote:
> 
> > Yes, it is the biggest drawback. I'm not sure how they are allowed
> > to be what in effect is an officer though (council members are in
> > effect officers, even if not explicitly so, at least in my view).
> 
> Please stop claiming this. Council members aren't officers of the
> foundation, the same way as members of the Debian technical committee
> aren't officers of SPI.
> 
> Also, who are the foundation's officers is defined by section 6.1 of
> the bylaws. Especially, officers are elected by the board of trustees.
> The council is neither elected by the trustees, nor are council
> members even required to be members of the foundation.
> 
> (I am ready to withdraw from my foundation membership if that should
> be necessary to clarify my status.)
> 

In that case combining the two bodies should be simpler.  Council
members, upon election would need to be afirmed and there sholdn't be a
conflict with their current job if what you say is true.

-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Agenda item: Formalize Gentoo's org structure

[Michał Górny]

W dniu pon, 09.04.2018 o godzinie 12∶50 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
napisał:
> On 18-04-09 18:57:27, Michał Górny wrote:
> > But let's get to the details.
> > 
> > Your proposal -- once again -- makes Trustees the highest-level
> > governing body of Gentoo and reduces Council to technical matters.  This
> > is against GLEP 39 which clearly states that Council is responsible for
> > all global decisions and as far as I'm aware is the most recent policy
> > defining the role of Council.  Unless you have a strong reason to
> > believe that this policy has been illegally forced upon Gentoo, you are
> > not 'formalizing' anything but attempting to change well-established
> > metastructure and outright lying to the community that the current state
> > is undefined.
> > 
> > I believe that Trustees can't be the highest governing body of Gentoo
> > for a number of reasons. I will enumerate those I can think of below:
> > 
> 
> GLEP 39 is not legally binding.  This proposal would make glep 39 need
> changes (mainly that there would be a governing body above council).  At
> that point glep 39 could possibly be made into a bylaw.

Are you saying that Trustees do not have to respect the result of vote
done among all Gentoo developers?

> > 1. Trustee elections are not even half as democractic as Council
> > elections.
> > 
> > With no 'reopen nominations', with the ability to accept Trustees
> > without a vote or for existing Trustees to appoint new Trustees for
> > missing slots, and finally with low interest in developers becoming
> > Trustees, this is effectively 'Trustee seat giveaway' and not
> > an election.  This is already bad enough for governing the Foundation
> > and I am fully against extending this to governing the whole of Gentoo.
> > 
> > And if you believe that reducing the power of Council will suddenly
> > convince developers to increase their interest in becoming Trustees, you
> > are wrong, for reasons outlined in further points.
> > 
> 
> Unfortunately we have not had the turnout we always with to have (for
> nominees or voters).  Also, as this is a business things are not
> necessarily always democratic (as much as we've tried to make them be).

Gentoo is not a business.  If you are attempting to turn a volunteer-
driven open source project into a business... I just can't find
appropriate words to describe this.

> 
> > 
> > 2. Bad Trustee work... increases their chances of re-election.
> > 
> > Given that each new Trustee takes legal responsibility about the state
> > of Foundation, he/she is directly endangered by repercussions of any
> > problems within the Foundation, including problems caused by previous
> > Trustees.  As far as I'm aware, we hadn't established any clear way of
> > new Trustees protecting themselves against this, and most of the new
> > candidates aren't really capable of suing previous board 'just in case'
> > as Kristian suggested.
> > 
> > As a result, if Trustees leave Foundation in a bad state (which has been
> > the case so far), then a number of candidates is going to refuse
> > the nomination because they do not want to take responsibility for
> > mistakes of their predecessors.  And this goes on recursively.  At this
> > point, even if Trustees finally managed to finish IRS as they claim
> > they'll do, I personally would still have serious doubt whether I could
> > really trust things are fully solved.
> > 
> 
> D&O insurance is an option, just a very expensive one.  That was the
> first task I undertook when I was voted in/joined.  Also, if no one
> steps up and tries to clean up it'll just go on (as you mention).  I
> intend to clean this up.

Do you intend to clean it up or do you intend to make someone else do
it?  I think that's a major difference because I don't really see any of
the trustees trying to learn bookkeeping so that Robin wouldn't have to
do everything himself.

> 
> > 
> > 4. Not everyone can be a legal Foundation representative.
> > 
> > This has been the argument a lot of people mentioned.  Some of our
> > developers simply can't legally be an Officer, not to mention Trustee
> > because of their employment or other legal positions.  Your proposal
> > unjustly prevents them from having any governing position.
> > 
> 
> Yes, it is the biggest drawback.  I'm not sure how they are allowed to
> be what in effect is an officer though (council members are in effect
> officers, even if not explicitly so, at least in my view).

Your view is not the law.

> 
> > 
> > 5. You are conflating governing and bureaucracy.
> > 
> > What we have right now is two disjoint bodies: Council which is elected
> > as representatives of developers, and Trustees who are responsible for
> > dealing with the bureaucracy.  With your proposal, developers are now
> > partially governed by bureaucrats for no real reason except... we need
> > bureaucrats, and bureaucrats want to rule us.
> > 
> > What you're doing here is blocking competent people who were doing a
> > good job dealing with non-technical matters on the Council just because
> > they do not have the necessary skills or experience to do the Trustee
> > work.  And on the other hand, giving power to people who may not be
> > trusted developer representatives just because they claim they're going
> > to take care of the bureaucracy.
> > 
> 
> I think you are putting words in my mouth.

I'm not.  If the above paragraphs sound like I am, I am sorry for that. 
I merely express what the result of this will be, in my opinion.

> 
> > 
> > 6. Trustees have serious problems dealing with their own work.
> > 
> > Let's be honest.  Trustees haven't been exactly the perfect caretakers
> > of legal and financial matters.  Even skipping the tax problems, let's
> > talk about copyright problems.  Rich Freeman has started the work on
> > solving them long time ago.  Then Trustees were responsible for it
> > and did not manage to do anything except for copying the Rich's text
> > with minor changes (also made by him) to Wiki.
> > 
> > The whole copyright effort started again when I established the 'joint
> > venture'.  Which was pretty much a nice way of saying 'we will do most
> > of it for you because otherwise it will never happen'.  But sure, that
> > was a complex problem.
> > 
> > Just take a look at their meeting logs and see how many items keep being
> > moved from month to month with no action taken:
> > 
> > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Meetings
> > 
> > At some point, you start thinking that Trustees are putting more effort
> > in trying to replace Council than in actually doing the things they were
> > elected to do.  Do you really think they will be doing a better job with
> > more responsibilities at hand?
> > 
> 
> I'd like you to restrict the time period of your attacks against the
> trustees to the last 2 years, which have been frustrating, but
> productive.
> 
> As far as who's been doing the work.  I agree that the council (and
> foundation) members have been doing a lot of work, particularly in the
> copyright area.  Keep in mind that rich0 is a member of the foundation
> as well.  I wish we had more capable people in the foundation doing this
> work but no one seems to want to step into that role but only do the
> work outside of the foundation's view then dump it in their laps.

Please do not conflate 'Foundation members' with 'Trustees'.  Just
because someone is a Foundation member doesn't mean you get to claim his
work.  I should also point out that rich0 has been a Council member
in the past.

> 
> I wasn't aware it was you who established the 'joint venture', iirc K_F
> even told me it was my responsibility to schedule meetings because it was
> my idea :P

You're conflating 'joint venture' with 'joint meetings'.  I've initiated
the venture meant to resolve copyright problems.  You've started
the meetings afterwards.

> 
> > 
> > 7. Who will oversee the Trustees?
> > 
> > Right now, the Council handles all the global decisions and appeals
> > in Gentoo.  However, if Council goes rogue and starts working against
> > the goals of Gentoo, Trustees can intervene. If Trustees become the
> > highest authority for decisions and appeals, who is going to intervene?
> > 
> 
> The same argument works for whatever the 'top body' ends up being, but
> there are two options we have right now (as in you can invoke it now).

No.  Because with my proposal, Trustees still are the legal 'top body',
and get the legal override for the Council.  However, since they only
have the power of override and not normal decisions (which means they
make a lot less decisions in the end), it is easy to oversee them and
act if they abuse their position.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Agenda item: Formalize Gentoo's org structure

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 11301 bytes --]

On 18-04-10 19:28:11, Michał Górny wrote:
> W dniu pon, 09.04.2018 o godzinie 12∶50 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
> napisał:
> > On 18-04-09 18:57:27, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > But let's get to the details.
> > > 
> > > Your proposal -- once again -- makes Trustees the highest-level
> > > governing body of Gentoo and reduces Council to technical matters.  This
> > > is against GLEP 39 which clearly states that Council is responsible for
> > > all global decisions and as far as I'm aware is the most recent policy
> > > defining the role of Council.  Unless you have a strong reason to
> > > believe that this policy has been illegally forced upon Gentoo, you are
> > > not 'formalizing' anything but attempting to change well-established
> > > metastructure and outright lying to the community that the current state
> > > is undefined.
> > > 
> > > I believe that Trustees can't be the highest governing body of Gentoo
> > > for a number of reasons. I will enumerate those I can think of below:
> > > 
> > 
> > GLEP 39 is not legally binding.  This proposal would make glep 39 need
> > changes (mainly that there would be a governing body above council).  At
> > that point glep 39 could possibly be made into a bylaw.
> 
> Are you saying that Trustees do not have to respect the result of vote
> done among all Gentoo developers?

The trustees are beholden to those that elected them, namely the
foundation membership, while many of them are developers, some are not.
So, no, we do not have to respect a result of those that are not our
members.  Even if our members voted for something illegal we likely
wouldn't have to respect that either.

Having said that, I would keep in mind that 'have to' is an absolute.  I
would take any such results into heavy consideration, but I can't just
rubber-stamp such things.

> 
> > > 1. Trustee elections are not even half as democractic as Council
> > > elections.
> > > 
> > > With no 'reopen nominations', with the ability to accept Trustees
> > > without a vote or for existing Trustees to appoint new Trustees for
> > > missing slots, and finally with low interest in developers becoming
> > > Trustees, this is effectively 'Trustee seat giveaway' and not
> > > an election.  This is already bad enough for governing the Foundation
> > > and I am fully against extending this to governing the whole of Gentoo.
> > > 
> > > And if you believe that reducing the power of Council will suddenly
> > > convince developers to increase their interest in becoming Trustees, you
> > > are wrong, for reasons outlined in further points.
> > > 
> > 
> > Unfortunately we have not had the turnout we always with to have (for
> > nominees or voters).  Also, as this is a business things are not
> > necessarily always democratic (as much as we've tried to make them be).
> 
> Gentoo is not a business.  If you are attempting to turn a volunteer-
> driven open source project into a business... I just can't find
> appropriate words to describe this.
> 

Gentoo is a product, the Gentoo Foundation is a business.  There are
many volunteer run orgs that are businesses.  Maybe it's not the same
world wide?

> > 
> > > 
> > > 2. Bad Trustee work... increases their chances of re-election.
> > > 
> > > Given that each new Trustee takes legal responsibility about the state
> > > of Foundation, he/she is directly endangered by repercussions of any
> > > problems within the Foundation, including problems caused by previous
> > > Trustees.  As far as I'm aware, we hadn't established any clear way of
> > > new Trustees protecting themselves against this, and most of the new
> > > candidates aren't really capable of suing previous board 'just in case'
> > > as Kristian suggested.
> > > 
> > > As a result, if Trustees leave Foundation in a bad state (which has been
> > > the case so far), then a number of candidates is going to refuse
> > > the nomination because they do not want to take responsibility for
> > > mistakes of their predecessors.  And this goes on recursively.  At this
> > > point, even if Trustees finally managed to finish IRS as they claim
> > > they'll do, I personally would still have serious doubt whether I could
> > > really trust things are fully solved.
> > > 
> > 
> > D&O insurance is an option, just a very expensive one.  That was the
> > first task I undertook when I was voted in/joined.  Also, if no one
> > steps up and tries to clean up it'll just go on (as you mention).  I
> > intend to clean this up.
> 
> Do you intend to clean it up or do you intend to make someone else do
> it?  I think that's a major difference because I don't really see any of
> the trustees trying to learn bookkeeping so that Robin wouldn't have to
> do everything himself.

I think I just said that I intend to clean it up.

> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > 4. Not everyone can be a legal Foundation representative.
> > > 
> > > This has been the argument a lot of people mentioned.  Some of our
> > > developers simply can't legally be an Officer, not to mention Trustee
> > > because of their employment or other legal positions.  Your proposal
> > > unjustly prevents them from having any governing position.
> > > 
> > 
> > Yes, it is the biggest drawback.  I'm not sure how they are allowed to
> > be what in effect is an officer though (council members are in effect
> > officers, even if not explicitly so, at least in my view).
> 
> Your view is not the law.
> 

Nope, only a judge can interpret the law, that's why I said 'in my view'.

> > 
> > > 
> > > 5. You are conflating governing and bureaucracy.
> > > 
> > > What we have right now is two disjoint bodies: Council which is elected
> > > as representatives of developers, and Trustees who are responsible for
> > > dealing with the bureaucracy.  With your proposal, developers are now
> > > partially governed by bureaucrats for no real reason except... we need
> > > bureaucrats, and bureaucrats want to rule us.
> > > 
> > > What you're doing here is blocking competent people who were doing a
> > > good job dealing with non-technical matters on the Council just because
> > > they do not have the necessary skills or experience to do the Trustee
> > > work.  And on the other hand, giving power to people who may not be
> > > trusted developer representatives just because they claim they're going
> > > to take care of the bureaucracy.
> > > 
> > 
> > I think you are putting words in my mouth.
> 
> I'm not.  If the above paragraphs sound like I am, I am sorry for that. 
> I merely express what the result of this will be, in my opinion.
> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > 6. Trustees have serious problems dealing with their own work.
> > > 
> > > Let's be honest.  Trustees haven't been exactly the perfect caretakers
> > > of legal and financial matters.  Even skipping the tax problems, let's
> > > talk about copyright problems.  Rich Freeman has started the work on
> > > solving them long time ago.  Then Trustees were responsible for it
> > > and did not manage to do anything except for copying the Rich's text
> > > with minor changes (also made by him) to Wiki.
> > > 
> > > The whole copyright effort started again when I established the 'joint
> > > venture'.  Which was pretty much a nice way of saying 'we will do most
> > > of it for you because otherwise it will never happen'.  But sure, that
> > > was a complex problem.
> > > 
> > > Just take a look at their meeting logs and see how many items keep being
> > > moved from month to month with no action taken:
> > > 
> > > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Meetings
> > > 
> > > At some point, you start thinking that Trustees are putting more effort
> > > in trying to replace Council than in actually doing the things they were
> > > elected to do.  Do you really think they will be doing a better job with
> > > more responsibilities at hand?
> > > 
> > 
> > I'd like you to restrict the time period of your attacks against the
> > trustees to the last 2 years, which have been frustrating, but
> > productive.
> > 
> > As far as who's been doing the work.  I agree that the council (and
> > foundation) members have been doing a lot of work, particularly in the
> > copyright area.  Keep in mind that rich0 is a member of the foundation
> > as well.  I wish we had more capable people in the foundation doing this
> > work but no one seems to want to step into that role but only do the
> > work outside of the foundation's view then dump it in their laps.
> 
> Please do not conflate 'Foundation members' with 'Trustees'.  Just
> because someone is a Foundation member doesn't mean you get to claim his
> work.  I should also point out that rich0 has been a Council member
> in the past.
> 

Yep, it'd be most accurate to state the full picture instead of either
half, that's all I was trying to say.

> > 
> > I wasn't aware it was you who established the 'joint venture', iirc K_F
> > even told me it was my responsibility to schedule meetings because it was
> > my idea :P
> 
> You're conflating 'joint venture' with 'joint meetings'.  I've initiated
> the venture meant to resolve copyright problems.  You've started
> the meetings afterwards.
> 

Ah, I misunderstood.

> > 
> > > 
> > > 7. Who will oversee the Trustees?
> > > 
> > > Right now, the Council handles all the global decisions and appeals
> > > in Gentoo.  However, if Council goes rogue and starts working against
> > > the goals of Gentoo, Trustees can intervene. If Trustees become the
> > > highest authority for decisions and appeals, who is going to intervene?
> > > 
> > 
> > The same argument works for whatever the 'top body' ends up being, but
> > there are two options we have right now (as in you can invoke it now).
> 
> No.  Because with my proposal, Trustees still are the legal 'top body',
> and get the legal override for the Council.  However, since they only
> have the power of override and not normal decisions (which means they
> make a lot less decisions in the end), it is easy to oversee them and
> act if they abuse their position.
> 

With my proposal that could still be the case with a bylaw change (it'd
also likely be necessary to have the bodies we can only override defined
in bylaws).

One of the primary problems I see right now is that there are no reports
from the business we run.  It's kinda difficult to run a business blind.

I've asked (recently) and received no reply to a request for a report on
comrel actions taken to be done on a monthly basis.  A part of that
request was to receive notification immediately upon any indication of
legal risk.  The last part of the request was to be have the trustees be
CC'd in comrel bugs (this is the big change that needs to be discussed
not here, it may not even be necessary if the former two requests are
honored).  It'd be nice to receive this report like we do from infra
every meeting, see https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Meetings/2018/04#Infra_update
Normally this update is  'nothing new', but would probably be slightly
more than that for council/comrel.

-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Agenda item: Formalize Gentoo's org structure

[Daniel Robbins]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1686 bytes --]

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@gentoo.org>
wrote:
>
>
> Gentoo is a product, the Gentoo Foundation is a business.  There are
> many volunteer run orgs that are businesses.  Maybe it's not the same
> world wide?


Careful here. "Business" generally means a for-profit entity and in this
sense the Foundation is *not* a business. It is a not-for-profit
corporation, run by trustees, elected by members. As a corporation, it has
similar legal standing as a for-profit company, but operates with a
different goal. Maybe this is what you meant.

Its goal is not profit or to market a "product". Gentoo Linux is not a
"product" and the scope of the Foundation does not need to be limited
purely to Gentoo Linux, although clearly, this is the primary means of
achieving its purpose.

The Foundation does have a purpose, and that mission is to advance
understanding and education of software technology, primarily via the
open/free nature of Gentoo Linux, providing the public with control of and
insight into the software they use, and source code. This is its mission,
to serve the public in this way. There appears to be confusion regarding
this mission. Think of all you have learned from being part of Gentoo,
thanks to the nature of free software, and how many users have more
influence/control over the software they run, due to giving them insight
into how their technology works -- via USE variables, building from source,
etc. These are all ways that Gentoo has allowed people to learn about
technology and be active participants in their software ecosystem, rather
than just being passive consumers of something someone else created.

Best,

-Daniel

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2161 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Agenda item: Formalize Gentoo's org structure

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2064 bytes --]

On 18-04-10 12:04:33, Daniel Robbins wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Gentoo is a product, the Gentoo Foundation is a business.  There are
> > many volunteer run orgs that are businesses.  Maybe it's not the same
> > world wide?
> 
> 
> Careful here. "Business" generally means a for-profit entity and in this
> sense the Foundation is *not* a business. It is a not-for-profit
> corporation, run by trustees, elected by members. As a corporation, it has
> similar legal standing as a for-profit company, but operates with a
> different goal. Maybe this is what you meant.

Thanks, guess I used the wrong word there, that is what I meant.

> 
> Its goal is not profit or to market a "product". Gentoo Linux is not a
> "product" and the scope of the Foundation does not need to be limited
> purely to Gentoo Linux, although clearly, this is the primary means of
> achieving its purpose.
> 

Sure, I wasn't intending to limit us to just gentoo linux, it was one of
many.

> The Foundation does have a purpose, and that mission is to advance
> understanding and education of software technology, primarily via the
> open/free nature of Gentoo Linux, providing the public with control of and
> insight into the software they use, and source code. This is its mission,
> to serve the public in this way. There appears to be confusion regarding
> this mission. Think of all you have learned from being part of Gentoo,
> thanks to the nature of free software, and how many users have more
> influence/control over the software they run, due to giving them insight
> into how their technology works -- via USE variables, building from source,
> etc. These are all ways that Gentoo has allowed people to learn about
> technology and be active participants in their software ecosystem, rather
> than just being passive consumers of something someone else created.
> 

Not here to debate that, but nice info in any case.

-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Agenda item: Formalize Gentoo's org structure

[Michał Górny]

W dniu wto, 10.04.2018 o godzinie 12∶47 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
napisał:
> On 18-04-10 19:28:11, Michał Górny wrote:
> > W dniu pon, 09.04.2018 o godzinie 12∶50 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
> > napisał:
> > > On 18-04-09 18:57:27, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > But let's get to the details.
> > > > 
> > > > Your proposal -- once again -- makes Trustees the highest-level
> > > > governing body of Gentoo and reduces Council to technical matters.  This
> > > > is against GLEP 39 which clearly states that Council is responsible for
> > > > all global decisions and as far as I'm aware is the most recent policy
> > > > defining the role of Council.  Unless you have a strong reason to
> > > > believe that this policy has been illegally forced upon Gentoo, you are
> > > > not 'formalizing' anything but attempting to change well-established
> > > > metastructure and outright lying to the community that the current state
> > > > is undefined.
> > > > 
> > > > I believe that Trustees can't be the highest governing body of Gentoo
> > > > for a number of reasons. I will enumerate those I can think of below:
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > GLEP 39 is not legally binding.  This proposal would make glep 39 need
> > > changes (mainly that there would be a governing body above council).  At
> > > that point glep 39 could possibly be made into a bylaw.
> > 
> > Are you saying that Trustees do not have to respect the result of vote
> > done among all Gentoo developers?
> 
> The trustees are beholden to those that elected them, namely the
> foundation membership, while many of them are developers, some are not.
> So, no, we do not have to respect a result of those that are not our
> members.

What is your claim, exactly?  Are you saying that back in 2005
the Foundation members and developers were disjoint the way they are
today?  Or are you claiming that Trustees don't have to respect old
rules because they have accepted additional non-developer members
afterwards?

According to LDAP, you have joined Gentoo in 2011.  GLEP 39 was
effective already back then, and unless your recruitment was much
different from mine (2010), you should've been taught about it.  So why
the sudden surprise about it?

>   Even if our members voted for something illegal we likely
> wouldn't have to respect that either.

Unless you are claiming that GLEP 39 is illegal (sic!), I don't
understand the purpose of this sentence.

> I've asked (recently) and received no reply to a request for a report on
> comrel actions taken to be done on a monthly basis.  A part of that
> request was to receive notification immediately upon any indication of
> legal risk.  The last part of the request was to be have the trustees be
> CC'd in comrel bugs (this is the big change that needs to be discussed
> not here, it may not even be necessary if the former two requests are
> honored).  It'd be nice to receive this report like we do from infra
> every meeting, see https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Meetings/2018/04#Infra_update
> Normally this update is  'nothing new', but would probably be slightly
> more than that for council/comrel.

Individual Trustees have been making multiple disjoint and inconsistent
demands lately.  Please take care to put some order in your house first,
and when you are ready to provide a single, consistent, representative
channel of requests, we will be glad to discuss them.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Agenda item: Formalize Gentoo's org structure

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4421 bytes --]

On 18-04-10 21:23:26, Michał Górny wrote:
> W dniu wto, 10.04.2018 o godzinie 12∶47 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
> napisał:
> > On 18-04-10 19:28:11, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > W dniu pon, 09.04.2018 o godzinie 12∶50 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
> > > napisał:
> > > > On 18-04-09 18:57:27, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > > But let's get to the details.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Your proposal -- once again -- makes Trustees the highest-level
> > > > > governing body of Gentoo and reduces Council to technical matters.  This
> > > > > is against GLEP 39 which clearly states that Council is responsible for
> > > > > all global decisions and as far as I'm aware is the most recent policy
> > > > > defining the role of Council.  Unless you have a strong reason to
> > > > > believe that this policy has been illegally forced upon Gentoo, you are
> > > > > not 'formalizing' anything but attempting to change well-established
> > > > > metastructure and outright lying to the community that the current state
> > > > > is undefined.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I believe that Trustees can't be the highest governing body of Gentoo
> > > > > for a number of reasons. I will enumerate those I can think of below:
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > GLEP 39 is not legally binding.  This proposal would make glep 39 need
> > > > changes (mainly that there would be a governing body above council).  At
> > > > that point glep 39 could possibly be made into a bylaw.
> > > 
> > > Are you saying that Trustees do not have to respect the result of vote
> > > done among all Gentoo developers?
> > 
> > The trustees are beholden to those that elected them, namely the
> > foundation membership, while many of them are developers, some are not.
> > So, no, we do not have to respect a result of those that are not our
> > members.
> 
> What is your claim, exactly?  Are you saying that back in 2005
> the Foundation members and developers were disjoint the way they are
> today?  Or are you claiming that Trustees don't have to respect old
> rules because they have accepted additional non-developer members
> afterwards?
> 
> According to LDAP, you have joined Gentoo in 2011.  GLEP 39 was
> effective already back then, and unless your recruitment was much
> different from mine (2010), you should've been taught about it.  So why
> the sudden surprise about it?
> 

The Trustees are responsible to those that elected them (Foundation
members).
I as a Gentoo Developer should respect GLEP 39.
I as a Gentoo Trustee do not need to respect GLEP 39.
These are different roles.  I think selinux did role based behavior well.
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/SELinux/Role-based_access_control

> >   Even if our members voted for something illegal we likely
> > wouldn't have to respect that either.
> 
> Unless you are claiming that GLEP 39 is illegal (sic!), I don't
> understand the purpose of this sentence.
> 

GLEP 39 is not illegal, nor is it enforcible.  GLEP 39 is orthogonal to
the Foundation, it does not apply to it.  That sentence is meant to just
mean that the Trustees cannot be forced to do something illegal, even by
a vote.

> > I've asked (recently) and received no reply to a request for a report on
> > comrel actions taken to be done on a monthly basis.  A part of that
> > request was to receive notification immediately upon any indication of
> > legal risk.  The last part of the request was to be have the trustees be
> > CC'd in comrel bugs (this is the big change that needs to be discussed
> > not here, it may not even be necessary if the former two requests are
> > honored).  It'd be nice to receive this report like we do from infra
> > every meeting, see https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Meetings/2018/04#Infra_update
> > Normally this update is  'nothing new', but would probably be slightly
> > more than that for council/comrel.
> 
> Individual Trustees have been making multiple disjoint and inconsistent
> demands lately.  Please take care to put some order in your house first,
> and when you are ready to provide a single, consistent, representative
> channel of requests, we will be glad to discuss them.
> 

I'd like to implement at least items 1 and 2 from the above list, but we
should move this to another thread so as to not distract from the agenda
item.

-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Agenda item: Formalize Gentoo's org structure

[Michał Górny]

W dniu wto, 10.04.2018 o godzinie 14∶39 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
napisał:
> On 18-04-10 21:23:26, Michał Górny wrote:
> > W dniu wto, 10.04.2018 o godzinie 12∶47 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
> > napisał:
> > > On 18-04-10 19:28:11, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > W dniu pon, 09.04.2018 o godzinie 12∶50 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
> > > > napisał:
> > > > > On 18-04-09 18:57:27, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > > > But let's get to the details.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Your proposal -- once again -- makes Trustees the highest-level
> > > > > > governing body of Gentoo and reduces Council to technical matters.  This
> > > > > > is against GLEP 39 which clearly states that Council is responsible for
> > > > > > all global decisions and as far as I'm aware is the most recent policy
> > > > > > defining the role of Council.  Unless you have a strong reason to
> > > > > > believe that this policy has been illegally forced upon Gentoo, you are
> > > > > > not 'formalizing' anything but attempting to change well-established
> > > > > > metastructure and outright lying to the community that the current state
> > > > > > is undefined.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I believe that Trustees can't be the highest governing body of Gentoo
> > > > > > for a number of reasons. I will enumerate those I can think of below:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > GLEP 39 is not legally binding.  This proposal would make glep 39 need
> > > > > changes (mainly that there would be a governing body above council).  At
> > > > > that point glep 39 could possibly be made into a bylaw.
> > > > 
> > > > Are you saying that Trustees do not have to respect the result of vote
> > > > done among all Gentoo developers?
> > > 
> > > The trustees are beholden to those that elected them, namely the
> > > foundation membership, while many of them are developers, some are not.
> > > So, no, we do not have to respect a result of those that are not our
> > > members.
> > 
> > What is your claim, exactly?  Are you saying that back in 2005
> > the Foundation members and developers were disjoint the way they are
> > today?  Or are you claiming that Trustees don't have to respect old
> > rules because they have accepted additional non-developer members
> > afterwards?
> > 
> > According to LDAP, you have joined Gentoo in 2011.  GLEP 39 was
> > effective already back then, and unless your recruitment was much
> > different from mine (2010), you should've been taught about it.  So why
> > the sudden surprise about it?
> > 
> 
> The Trustees are responsible to those that elected them (Foundation
> members).
> I as a Gentoo Developer should respect GLEP 39.
> I as a Gentoo Trustee do not need to respect GLEP 39.
> These are different roles.  I think selinux did role based behavior well.
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/SELinux/Role-based_access_control
> 

Does that mean that I as Gentoo Developer does not have to respect
the decisions made by Trustees?  In that case I suppose all we have to
do is leave the Foundation.


-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Agenda item: Formalize Gentoo's org structure

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3704 bytes --]

On 18-04-10 21:41:47, Michał Górny wrote:
> W dniu wto, 10.04.2018 o godzinie 14∶39 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
> napisał:
> > On 18-04-10 21:23:26, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > W dniu wto, 10.04.2018 o godzinie 12∶47 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
> > > napisał:
> > > > On 18-04-10 19:28:11, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > > W dniu pon, 09.04.2018 o godzinie 12∶50 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
> > > > > napisał:
> > > > > > On 18-04-09 18:57:27, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > > > > But let's get to the details.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Your proposal -- once again -- makes Trustees the highest-level
> > > > > > > governing body of Gentoo and reduces Council to technical matters.  This
> > > > > > > is against GLEP 39 which clearly states that Council is responsible for
> > > > > > > all global decisions and as far as I'm aware is the most recent policy
> > > > > > > defining the role of Council.  Unless you have a strong reason to
> > > > > > > believe that this policy has been illegally forced upon Gentoo, you are
> > > > > > > not 'formalizing' anything but attempting to change well-established
> > > > > > > metastructure and outright lying to the community that the current state
> > > > > > > is undefined.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I believe that Trustees can't be the highest governing body of Gentoo
> > > > > > > for a number of reasons. I will enumerate those I can think of below:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > GLEP 39 is not legally binding.  This proposal would make glep 39 need
> > > > > > changes (mainly that there would be a governing body above council).  At
> > > > > > that point glep 39 could possibly be made into a bylaw.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Are you saying that Trustees do not have to respect the result of vote
> > > > > done among all Gentoo developers?
> > > > 
> > > > The trustees are beholden to those that elected them, namely the
> > > > foundation membership, while many of them are developers, some are not.
> > > > So, no, we do not have to respect a result of those that are not our
> > > > members.
> > > 
> > > What is your claim, exactly?  Are you saying that back in 2005
> > > the Foundation members and developers were disjoint the way they are
> > > today?  Or are you claiming that Trustees don't have to respect old
> > > rules because they have accepted additional non-developer members
> > > afterwards?
> > > 
> > > According to LDAP, you have joined Gentoo in 2011.  GLEP 39 was
> > > effective already back then, and unless your recruitment was much
> > > different from mine (2010), you should've been taught about it.  So why
> > > the sudden surprise about it?
> > > 
> > 
> > The Trustees are responsible to those that elected them (Foundation
> > members).
> > I as a Gentoo Developer should respect GLEP 39.
> > I as a Gentoo Trustee do not need to respect GLEP 39.
> > These are different roles.  I think selinux did role based behavior well.
> > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/SELinux/Role-based_access_control
> > 
> 
> Does that mean that I as Gentoo Developer does not have to respect
> the decisions made by Trustees?  In that case I suppose all we have to
> do is leave the Foundation.
> 

You are still using the Gentoo name working on foundation owned
resources.  You as a developer need to respect the Trustees in that
respect.  The council needs to respect the foundation for legal /
monetary reasons.  If the Trustees/Foundation makes a decision
regarding what it owns it needs to be obeyed (as long as it's legal of
course).  I'm probably missing something here though.

-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Agenda item: Formalize Gentoo's org structure

[Daniel Robbins]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 841 bytes --]

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 1:41 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:

>
> Does that mean that I as Gentoo Developer does not have to respect
> the decisions made by Trustees?  In that case I suppose all we have to
> do is leave the Foundation.


No, in this case you would ultimately need to leave Gentoo. Gentoo Linux is
run by the Foundation, controls gentoo.org, owns or controls all Gentoo
infrastructure, etc. However, you can of course fork the project and then
work outside the scope of the Foundation, since it is free software. I
would actually recommend this approach as the in-fighting is getting a
little ridiculous, don't you think? Time is better spent developing. If you
don't like how the project is run, start your own project. But don't just
hang around being disruptive and argumentative.

-Daniel

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1242 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Agenda item: Formalize Gentoo's org structure

[Michał Górny]

W dniu wto, 10.04.2018 o godzinie 14∶47 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
napisał:
> On 18-04-10 21:41:47, Michał Górny wrote:
> > W dniu wto, 10.04.2018 o godzinie 14∶39 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
> > napisał:
> > > On 18-04-10 21:23:26, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > W dniu wto, 10.04.2018 o godzinie 12∶47 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
> > > > napisał:
> > > > > On 18-04-10 19:28:11, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > > > W dniu pon, 09.04.2018 o godzinie 12∶50 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
> > > > > > napisał:
> > > > > > > On 18-04-09 18:57:27, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > > > > > But let's get to the details.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Your proposal -- once again -- makes Trustees the highest-level
> > > > > > > > governing body of Gentoo and reduces Council to technical matters.  This
> > > > > > > > is against GLEP 39 which clearly states that Council is responsible for
> > > > > > > > all global decisions and as far as I'm aware is the most recent policy
> > > > > > > > defining the role of Council.  Unless you have a strong reason to
> > > > > > > > believe that this policy has been illegally forced upon Gentoo, you are
> > > > > > > > not 'formalizing' anything but attempting to change well-established
> > > > > > > > metastructure and outright lying to the community that the current state
> > > > > > > > is undefined.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > I believe that Trustees can't be the highest governing body of Gentoo
> > > > > > > > for a number of reasons. I will enumerate those I can think of below:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > GLEP 39 is not legally binding.  This proposal would make glep 39 need
> > > > > > > changes (mainly that there would be a governing body above council).  At
> > > > > > > that point glep 39 could possibly be made into a bylaw.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Are you saying that Trustees do not have to respect the result of vote
> > > > > > done among all Gentoo developers?
> > > > > 
> > > > > The trustees are beholden to those that elected them, namely the
> > > > > foundation membership, while many of them are developers, some are not.
> > > > > So, no, we do not have to respect a result of those that are not our
> > > > > members.
> > > > 
> > > > What is your claim, exactly?  Are you saying that back in 2005
> > > > the Foundation members and developers were disjoint the way they are
> > > > today?  Or are you claiming that Trustees don't have to respect old
> > > > rules because they have accepted additional non-developer members
> > > > afterwards?
> > > > 
> > > > According to LDAP, you have joined Gentoo in 2011.  GLEP 39 was
> > > > effective already back then, and unless your recruitment was much
> > > > different from mine (2010), you should've been taught about it.  So why
> > > > the sudden surprise about it?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > The Trustees are responsible to those that elected them (Foundation
> > > members).
> > > I as a Gentoo Developer should respect GLEP 39.
> > > I as a Gentoo Trustee do not need to respect GLEP 39.
> > > These are different roles.  I think selinux did role based behavior well.
> > > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/SELinux/Role-based_access_control
> > > 
> > 
> > Does that mean that I as Gentoo Developer does not have to respect
> > the decisions made by Trustees?  In that case I suppose all we have to
> > do is leave the Foundation.
> > 
> 
> You are still using the Gentoo name working on foundation owned
> resources.  You as a developer need to respect the Trustees in that
> respect.  The council needs to respect the foundation for legal /
> monetary reasons.  If the Trustees/Foundation makes a decision
> regarding what it owns it needs to be obeyed (as long as it's legal of
> course).  I'm probably missing something here though.
> 

...and at the same time Foundation receives money from users who are
using Gentoo not because of what the Trustees do but because of the work
*developers* put into the distribution.  So why do the Trustees not have
to respect the developers?

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Agenda item: Formalize Gentoo's org structure

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4486 bytes --]

On 18-04-10 21:54:57, Michał Górny wrote:
> W dniu wto, 10.04.2018 o godzinie 14∶47 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
> napisał:
> > On 18-04-10 21:41:47, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > W dniu wto, 10.04.2018 o godzinie 14∶39 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
> > > napisał:
> > > > On 18-04-10 21:23:26, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > > W dniu wto, 10.04.2018 o godzinie 12∶47 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
> > > > > napisał:
> > > > > > On 18-04-10 19:28:11, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > > > > W dniu pon, 09.04.2018 o godzinie 12∶50 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
> > > > > > > napisał:
> > > > > > > > On 18-04-09 18:57:27, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > > > > > > But let's get to the details.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Your proposal -- once again -- makes Trustees the highest-level
> > > > > > > > > governing body of Gentoo and reduces Council to technical matters.  This
> > > > > > > > > is against GLEP 39 which clearly states that Council is responsible for
> > > > > > > > > all global decisions and as far as I'm aware is the most recent policy
> > > > > > > > > defining the role of Council.  Unless you have a strong reason to
> > > > > > > > > believe that this policy has been illegally forced upon Gentoo, you are
> > > > > > > > > not 'formalizing' anything but attempting to change well-established
> > > > > > > > > metastructure and outright lying to the community that the current state
> > > > > > > > > is undefined.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > I believe that Trustees can't be the highest governing body of Gentoo
> > > > > > > > > for a number of reasons. I will enumerate those I can think of below:
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > GLEP 39 is not legally binding.  This proposal would make glep 39 need
> > > > > > > > changes (mainly that there would be a governing body above council).  At
> > > > > > > > that point glep 39 could possibly be made into a bylaw.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Are you saying that Trustees do not have to respect the result of vote
> > > > > > > done among all Gentoo developers?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The trustees are beholden to those that elected them, namely the
> > > > > > foundation membership, while many of them are developers, some are not.
> > > > > > So, no, we do not have to respect a result of those that are not our
> > > > > > members.
> > > > > 
> > > > > What is your claim, exactly?  Are you saying that back in 2005
> > > > > the Foundation members and developers were disjoint the way they are
> > > > > today?  Or are you claiming that Trustees don't have to respect old
> > > > > rules because they have accepted additional non-developer members
> > > > > afterwards?
> > > > > 
> > > > > According to LDAP, you have joined Gentoo in 2011.  GLEP 39 was
> > > > > effective already back then, and unless your recruitment was much
> > > > > different from mine (2010), you should've been taught about it.  So why
> > > > > the sudden surprise about it?
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > The Trustees are responsible to those that elected them (Foundation
> > > > members).
> > > > I as a Gentoo Developer should respect GLEP 39.
> > > > I as a Gentoo Trustee do not need to respect GLEP 39.
> > > > These are different roles.  I think selinux did role based behavior well.
> > > > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/SELinux/Role-based_access_control
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Does that mean that I as Gentoo Developer does not have to respect
> > > the decisions made by Trustees?  In that case I suppose all we have to
> > > do is leave the Foundation.
> > > 
> > 
> > You are still using the Gentoo name working on foundation owned
> > resources.  You as a developer need to respect the Trustees in that
> > respect.  The council needs to respect the foundation for legal /
> > monetary reasons.  If the Trustees/Foundation makes a decision
> > regarding what it owns it needs to be obeyed (as long as it's legal of
> > course).  I'm probably missing something here though.
> > 
> 
> ...and at the same time Foundation receives money from users who are
> using Gentoo not because of what the Trustees do but because of the work
> *developers* put into the distribution.  So why do the Trustees not have
> to respect the developers?
> 

I want to make sure I answer the question you are actually asking, what
do you mean by respect?

-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Agenda item: Formalize Gentoo's org structure

[Daniel Robbins]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 459 bytes --]

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 1:54 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:

>
> ...and at the same time Foundation receives money from users who are
> using Gentoo not because of what the Trustees do but because of the work
> *developers* put into the distribution.  So why do the Trustees not have
> to respect the developers?


Trustees are volunteer, they get no money from Gentoo.

As far as respect -- respect is a two-way street.

-Daniel

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 876 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Agenda item: Formalize Gentoo's org structure

[Michał Górny]

W dniu wto, 10.04.2018 o godzinie 14∶56 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
napisał:
> On 18-04-10 21:54:57, Michał Górny wrote:
> > W dniu wto, 10.04.2018 o godzinie 14∶47 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
> > napisał:
> > > On 18-04-10 21:41:47, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > W dniu wto, 10.04.2018 o godzinie 14∶39 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
> > > > napisał:
> > > > > On 18-04-10 21:23:26, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > > > W dniu wto, 10.04.2018 o godzinie 12∶47 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
> > > > > > napisał:
> > > > > > > On 18-04-10 19:28:11, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > > > > > W dniu pon, 09.04.2018 o godzinie 12∶50 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
> > > > > > > > napisał:
> > > > > > > > > On 18-04-09 18:57:27, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > But let's get to the details.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Your proposal -- once again -- makes Trustees the highest-level
> > > > > > > > > > governing body of Gentoo and reduces Council to technical matters.  This
> > > > > > > > > > is against GLEP 39 which clearly states that Council is responsible for
> > > > > > > > > > all global decisions and as far as I'm aware is the most recent policy
> > > > > > > > > > defining the role of Council.  Unless you have a strong reason to
> > > > > > > > > > believe that this policy has been illegally forced upon Gentoo, you are
> > > > > > > > > > not 'formalizing' anything but attempting to change well-established
> > > > > > > > > > metastructure and outright lying to the community that the current state
> > > > > > > > > > is undefined.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > I believe that Trustees can't be the highest governing body of Gentoo
> > > > > > > > > > for a number of reasons. I will enumerate those I can think of below:
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > GLEP 39 is not legally binding.  This proposal would make glep 39 need
> > > > > > > > > changes (mainly that there would be a governing body above council).  At
> > > > > > > > > that point glep 39 could possibly be made into a bylaw.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Are you saying that Trustees do not have to respect the result of vote
> > > > > > > > done among all Gentoo developers?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > The trustees are beholden to those that elected them, namely the
> > > > > > > foundation membership, while many of them are developers, some are not.
> > > > > > > So, no, we do not have to respect a result of those that are not our
> > > > > > > members.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > What is your claim, exactly?  Are you saying that back in 2005
> > > > > > the Foundation members and developers were disjoint the way they are
> > > > > > today?  Or are you claiming that Trustees don't have to respect old
> > > > > > rules because they have accepted additional non-developer members
> > > > > > afterwards?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > According to LDAP, you have joined Gentoo in 2011.  GLEP 39 was
> > > > > > effective already back then, and unless your recruitment was much
> > > > > > different from mine (2010), you should've been taught about it.  So why
> > > > > > the sudden surprise about it?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > The Trustees are responsible to those that elected them (Foundation
> > > > > members).
> > > > > I as a Gentoo Developer should respect GLEP 39.
> > > > > I as a Gentoo Trustee do not need to respect GLEP 39.
> > > > > These are different roles.  I think selinux did role based behavior well.
> > > > > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/SELinux/Role-based_access_control
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Does that mean that I as Gentoo Developer does not have to respect
> > > > the decisions made by Trustees?  In that case I suppose all we have to
> > > > do is leave the Foundation.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > You are still using the Gentoo name working on foundation owned
> > > resources.  You as a developer need to respect the Trustees in that
> > > respect.  The council needs to respect the foundation for legal /
> > > monetary reasons.  If the Trustees/Foundation makes a decision
> > > regarding what it owns it needs to be obeyed (as long as it's legal of
> > > course).  I'm probably missing something here though.
> > > 
> > 
> > ...and at the same time Foundation receives money from users who are
> > using Gentoo not because of what the Trustees do but because of the work
> > *developers* put into the distribution.  So why do the Trustees not have
> > to respect the developers?
> > 
> 
> I want to make sure I answer the question you are actually asking, what
> do you mean by respect?
> 

You have said that as a developer I have to respect rules set by
Trustees since I use the resources they are providing.  Therefore, I am
asking why Trustees do not feel that it would be appropriate to respect
the rules approved by the developer community since they are explicitly
relying on the work of the developers.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Agenda item: Formalize Gentoo's org structure

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5725 bytes --]

On 18-04-10 22:50:32, Michał Górny wrote:
> W dniu wto, 10.04.2018 o godzinie 14∶56 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
> napisał:
> > On 18-04-10 21:54:57, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > W dniu wto, 10.04.2018 o godzinie 14∶47 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
> > > napisał:
> > > > On 18-04-10 21:41:47, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > > W dniu wto, 10.04.2018 o godzinie 14∶39 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
> > > > > napisał:
> > > > > > On 18-04-10 21:23:26, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > > > > W dniu wto, 10.04.2018 o godzinie 12∶47 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
> > > > > > > napisał:
> > > > > > > > On 18-04-10 19:28:11, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > > > > > > W dniu pon, 09.04.2018 o godzinie 12∶50 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
> > > > > > > > > napisał:
> > > > > > > > > > On 18-04-09 18:57:27, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > But let's get to the details.
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > Your proposal -- once again -- makes Trustees the highest-level
> > > > > > > > > > > governing body of Gentoo and reduces Council to technical matters.  This
> > > > > > > > > > > is against GLEP 39 which clearly states that Council is responsible for
> > > > > > > > > > > all global decisions and as far as I'm aware is the most recent policy
> > > > > > > > > > > defining the role of Council.  Unless you have a strong reason to
> > > > > > > > > > > believe that this policy has been illegally forced upon Gentoo, you are
> > > > > > > > > > > not 'formalizing' anything but attempting to change well-established
> > > > > > > > > > > metastructure and outright lying to the community that the current state
> > > > > > > > > > > is undefined.
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > I believe that Trustees can't be the highest governing body of Gentoo
> > > > > > > > > > > for a number of reasons. I will enumerate those I can think of below:
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > GLEP 39 is not legally binding.  This proposal would make glep 39 need
> > > > > > > > > > changes (mainly that there would be a governing body above council).  At
> > > > > > > > > > that point glep 39 could possibly be made into a bylaw.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Are you saying that Trustees do not have to respect the result of vote
> > > > > > > > > done among all Gentoo developers?
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > The trustees are beholden to those that elected them, namely the
> > > > > > > > foundation membership, while many of them are developers, some are not.
> > > > > > > > So, no, we do not have to respect a result of those that are not our
> > > > > > > > members.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > What is your claim, exactly?  Are you saying that back in 2005
> > > > > > > the Foundation members and developers were disjoint the way they are
> > > > > > > today?  Or are you claiming that Trustees don't have to respect old
> > > > > > > rules because they have accepted additional non-developer members
> > > > > > > afterwards?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > According to LDAP, you have joined Gentoo in 2011.  GLEP 39 was
> > > > > > > effective already back then, and unless your recruitment was much
> > > > > > > different from mine (2010), you should've been taught about it.  So why
> > > > > > > the sudden surprise about it?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The Trustees are responsible to those that elected them (Foundation
> > > > > > members).
> > > > > > I as a Gentoo Developer should respect GLEP 39.
> > > > > > I as a Gentoo Trustee do not need to respect GLEP 39.
> > > > > > These are different roles.  I think selinux did role based behavior well.
> > > > > > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/SELinux/Role-based_access_control
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Does that mean that I as Gentoo Developer does not have to respect
> > > > > the decisions made by Trustees?  In that case I suppose all we have to
> > > > > do is leave the Foundation.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > You are still using the Gentoo name working on foundation owned
> > > > resources.  You as a developer need to respect the Trustees in that
> > > > respect.  The council needs to respect the foundation for legal /
> > > > monetary reasons.  If the Trustees/Foundation makes a decision
> > > > regarding what it owns it needs to be obeyed (as long as it's legal of
> > > > course).  I'm probably missing something here though.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > ...and at the same time Foundation receives money from users who are
> > > using Gentoo not because of what the Trustees do but because of the work
> > > *developers* put into the distribution.  So why do the Trustees not have
> > > to respect the developers?
> > > 
> > 
> > I want to make sure I answer the question you are actually asking, what
> > do you mean by respect?
> > 
> 
> You have said that as a developer I have to respect rules set by
> Trustees since I use the resources they are providing.  Therefore, I am
> asking why Trustees do not feel that it would be appropriate to respect
> the rules approved by the developer community since they are explicitly
> relying on the work of the developers.
> 

The rules we obey are the bylaws.  Both members and Trustees can set
them.  https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Bylaws#Article_X_Amendment
I think I said earlier that I (personally at least) take GLEPs under
heavy advisement in my Trustee role, but I can't obey them carte
blanche.  In particular, GLEP 39 would mean that the council is the
greater power even in legal matters (GLEP 39 is not limited in scope).

-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Agenda item: Formalize Gentoo's org structure

[Michał Górny]

W dniu wto, 10.04.2018 o godzinie 15∶58 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
napisał:
> On 18-04-10 22:50:32, Michał Górny wrote:
> > W dniu wto, 10.04.2018 o godzinie 14∶56 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
> > napisał:
> > > On 18-04-10 21:54:57, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > W dniu wto, 10.04.2018 o godzinie 14∶47 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
> > > > napisał:
> > > > > On 18-04-10 21:41:47, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > > > W dniu wto, 10.04.2018 o godzinie 14∶39 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
> > > > > > napisał:
> > > > > > > On 18-04-10 21:23:26, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > > > > > W dniu wto, 10.04.2018 o godzinie 12∶47 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
> > > > > > > > napisał:
> > > > > > > > > On 18-04-10 19:28:11, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > W dniu pon, 09.04.2018 o godzinie 12∶50 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
> > > > > > > > > > napisał:
> > > > > > > > > > > On 18-04-09 18:57:27, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > But let's get to the details.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Your proposal -- once again -- makes Trustees the highest-level
> > > > > > > > > > > > governing body of Gentoo and reduces Council to technical matters.  This
> > > > > > > > > > > > is against GLEP 39 which clearly states that Council is responsible for
> > > > > > > > > > > > all global decisions and as far as I'm aware is the most recent policy
> > > > > > > > > > > > defining the role of Council.  Unless you have a strong reason to
> > > > > > > > > > > > believe that this policy has been illegally forced upon Gentoo, you are
> > > > > > > > > > > > not 'formalizing' anything but attempting to change well-established
> > > > > > > > > > > > metastructure and outright lying to the community that the current state
> > > > > > > > > > > > is undefined.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that Trustees can't be the highest governing body of Gentoo
> > > > > > > > > > > > for a number of reasons. I will enumerate those I can think of below:
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > GLEP 39 is not legally binding.  This proposal would make glep 39 need
> > > > > > > > > > > changes (mainly that there would be a governing body above council).  At
> > > > > > > > > > > that point glep 39 could possibly be made into a bylaw.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Are you saying that Trustees do not have to respect the result of vote
> > > > > > > > > > done among all Gentoo developers?
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > The trustees are beholden to those that elected them, namely the
> > > > > > > > > foundation membership, while many of them are developers, some are not.
> > > > > > > > > So, no, we do not have to respect a result of those that are not our
> > > > > > > > > members.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > What is your claim, exactly?  Are you saying that back in 2005
> > > > > > > > the Foundation members and developers were disjoint the way they are
> > > > > > > > today?  Or are you claiming that Trustees don't have to respect old
> > > > > > > > rules because they have accepted additional non-developer members
> > > > > > > > afterwards?
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > According to LDAP, you have joined Gentoo in 2011.  GLEP 39 was
> > > > > > > > effective already back then, and unless your recruitment was much
> > > > > > > > different from mine (2010), you should've been taught about it.  So why
> > > > > > > > the sudden surprise about it?
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > The Trustees are responsible to those that elected them (Foundation
> > > > > > > members).
> > > > > > > I as a Gentoo Developer should respect GLEP 39.
> > > > > > > I as a Gentoo Trustee do not need to respect GLEP 39.
> > > > > > > These are different roles.  I think selinux did role based behavior well.
> > > > > > > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/SELinux/Role-based_access_control
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Does that mean that I as Gentoo Developer does not have to respect
> > > > > > the decisions made by Trustees?  In that case I suppose all we have to
> > > > > > do is leave the Foundation.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > You are still using the Gentoo name working on foundation owned
> > > > > resources.  You as a developer need to respect the Trustees in that
> > > > > respect.  The council needs to respect the foundation for legal /
> > > > > monetary reasons.  If the Trustees/Foundation makes a decision
> > > > > regarding what it owns it needs to be obeyed (as long as it's legal of
> > > > > course).  I'm probably missing something here though.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > ...and at the same time Foundation receives money from users who are
> > > > using Gentoo not because of what the Trustees do but because of the work
> > > > *developers* put into the distribution.  So why do the Trustees not have
> > > > to respect the developers?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > I want to make sure I answer the question you are actually asking, what
> > > do you mean by respect?
> > > 
> > 
> > You have said that as a developer I have to respect rules set by
> > Trustees since I use the resources they are providing.  Therefore, I am
> > asking why Trustees do not feel that it would be appropriate to respect
> > the rules approved by the developer community since they are explicitly
> > relying on the work of the developers.
> > 
> 
> The rules we obey are the bylaws.  Both members and Trustees can set
> them.  https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Bylaws#Article_X_Amendment
> I think I said earlier that I (personally at least) take GLEPs under
> heavy advisement in my Trustee role, but I can't obey them carte
> blanche.  In particular, GLEP 39 would mean that the council is the
> greater power even in legal matters (GLEP 39 is not limited in scope).
> 

Council making decisions on all global matters, including legal
and financial would certainly solve the 'two-headed beast' problem that
keeps coming up.  However, I wouldn't consider it 'greater power'. 
Given their legal power, Trustees still sit on top with override power.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Agenda item: Formalize Gentoo's org structure

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6706 bytes --]

On 18-04-10 23:05:09, Michał Górny wrote:
> W dniu wto, 10.04.2018 o godzinie 15∶58 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
> napisał:
> > On 18-04-10 22:50:32, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > W dniu wto, 10.04.2018 o godzinie 14∶56 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
> > > napisał:
> > > > On 18-04-10 21:54:57, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > > W dniu wto, 10.04.2018 o godzinie 14∶47 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
> > > > > napisał:
> > > > > > On 18-04-10 21:41:47, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > > > > W dniu wto, 10.04.2018 o godzinie 14∶39 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
> > > > > > > napisał:
> > > > > > > > On 18-04-10 21:23:26, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > > > > > > W dniu wto, 10.04.2018 o godzinie 12∶47 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
> > > > > > > > > napisał:
> > > > > > > > > > On 18-04-10 19:28:11, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > W dniu pon, 09.04.2018 o godzinie 12∶50 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
> > > > > > > > > > > napisał:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 18-04-09 18:57:27, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > But let's get to the details.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Your proposal -- once again -- makes Trustees the highest-level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > governing body of Gentoo and reduces Council to technical matters.  This
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is against GLEP 39 which clearly states that Council is responsible for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > all global decisions and as far as I'm aware is the most recent policy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > defining the role of Council.  Unless you have a strong reason to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > believe that this policy has been illegally forced upon Gentoo, you are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > not 'formalizing' anything but attempting to change well-established
> > > > > > > > > > > > > metastructure and outright lying to the community that the current state
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is undefined.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that Trustees can't be the highest governing body of Gentoo
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for a number of reasons. I will enumerate those I can think of below:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > GLEP 39 is not legally binding.  This proposal would make glep 39 need
> > > > > > > > > > > > changes (mainly that there would be a governing body above council).  At
> > > > > > > > > > > > that point glep 39 could possibly be made into a bylaw.
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > Are you saying that Trustees do not have to respect the result of vote
> > > > > > > > > > > done among all Gentoo developers?
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > The trustees are beholden to those that elected them, namely the
> > > > > > > > > > foundation membership, while many of them are developers, some are not.
> > > > > > > > > > So, no, we do not have to respect a result of those that are not our
> > > > > > > > > > members.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > What is your claim, exactly?  Are you saying that back in 2005
> > > > > > > > > the Foundation members and developers were disjoint the way they are
> > > > > > > > > today?  Or are you claiming that Trustees don't have to respect old
> > > > > > > > > rules because they have accepted additional non-developer members
> > > > > > > > > afterwards?
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > According to LDAP, you have joined Gentoo in 2011.  GLEP 39 was
> > > > > > > > > effective already back then, and unless your recruitment was much
> > > > > > > > > different from mine (2010), you should've been taught about it.  So why
> > > > > > > > > the sudden surprise about it?
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > The Trustees are responsible to those that elected them (Foundation
> > > > > > > > members).
> > > > > > > > I as a Gentoo Developer should respect GLEP 39.
> > > > > > > > I as a Gentoo Trustee do not need to respect GLEP 39.
> > > > > > > > These are different roles.  I think selinux did role based behavior well.
> > > > > > > > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/SELinux/Role-based_access_control
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Does that mean that I as Gentoo Developer does not have to respect
> > > > > > > the decisions made by Trustees?  In that case I suppose all we have to
> > > > > > > do is leave the Foundation.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > You are still using the Gentoo name working on foundation owned
> > > > > > resources.  You as a developer need to respect the Trustees in that
> > > > > > respect.  The council needs to respect the foundation for legal /
> > > > > > monetary reasons.  If the Trustees/Foundation makes a decision
> > > > > > regarding what it owns it needs to be obeyed (as long as it's legal of
> > > > > > course).  I'm probably missing something here though.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > ...and at the same time Foundation receives money from users who are
> > > > > using Gentoo not because of what the Trustees do but because of the work
> > > > > *developers* put into the distribution.  So why do the Trustees not have
> > > > > to respect the developers?
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > I want to make sure I answer the question you are actually asking, what
> > > > do you mean by respect?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > You have said that as a developer I have to respect rules set by
> > > Trustees since I use the resources they are providing.  Therefore, I am
> > > asking why Trustees do not feel that it would be appropriate to respect
> > > the rules approved by the developer community since they are explicitly
> > > relying on the work of the developers.
> > > 
> > 
> > The rules we obey are the bylaws.  Both members and Trustees can set
> > them.  https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Bylaws#Article_X_Amendment
> > I think I said earlier that I (personally at least) take GLEPs under
> > heavy advisement in my Trustee role, but I can't obey them carte
> > blanche.  In particular, GLEP 39 would mean that the council is the
> > greater power even in legal matters (GLEP 39 is not limited in scope).
> > 
> 
> Council making decisions on all global matters, including legal
> and financial would certainly solve the 'two-headed beast' problem that
> keeps coming up.  However, I wouldn't consider it 'greater power'. 
> Given their legal power, Trustees still sit on top with override power.
> 

That's not my interpretation of it.  Guess this is where we agree to
disagree (unless someone pops up with more evidence backed claims).

-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]