[gentoo-nfp] Re: Gentoo Linux Project / Gentoo Foundation

[gentoo-nfp] Re: Gentoo Linux Project / Gentoo Foundation

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

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

Mr. Garbee

On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 22:12 +1300, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-01-21 at 10:12 -0500, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> > Mr. Garbee,
> > 
> > 	The following was originally sent to board@spi-inc.org which is a
> > members only list. Which the email below bounced back. Likely not the
> > proper place/person, but really don't want to ask/discuss the below on a
> > public list at this time.
> 
> I'm currently vacationing with my family, and am likely to be without
> decent Internet access for the next few days.  Will CC the board on this
> reply in hope that one of our members will volunteer to work with you to
> get answers in my absence.  If not, I'll be happy to pick this back up
> in a week or so.

Thank you very much, and enjoy your vacation :)

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.
Gentoo/amd64/Java

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-nfp] Re: Gentoo Linux Project / Gentoo Foundation

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2580 bytes --]

Joshua,

On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 07:43 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> William,
> 
> >> The SFC presently lacks funds to take on a project of our size. Not to
> >> mention is some what new, and has never managed a project like ours. Much
> >> less with our existing structure.
> 
> I wouldn't be too worried about that with us as we have Debian, 
> PostgreSQL and OpenOffice.org :)

Great, as financing is one of the major obstacles to handing things over
to the SFC.

> >>
> >> I know via the SFC's connection to the SFLC. Provides them more of an
> >> ability to provide legal counsel than the SPI. 
> 
> We actually have two attorneys one is SFLC and another who has beeen 
> with us for some time.

Excellent

> > But from what I have been
> >> told. If Gentoo's Foundation or Project is in proper legal standing,
> >> and/or an entity like the SPI managing 1-2 above. We can apply to the
> >> SFLC independently for counsel.
> >>
> 
> Right but see above about us already having this resource for you.

Sure no worries. Just wasn't something that would prevent us from
dealing with the SPI. But now it's moot per your info :)

> >> I am just doing some initial research, to see if the SPI would even be
> >> interested. What we need to do before applying, if anything, etc.
> >>
> 
> Take a look at:
> 
> http://www.spi-inc.org/treasurer/associated-project-howto.html
> http://www.spi-inc.org/secretary/joining-spi-projects.html/

I did, just wasn't sure if we should proceed with the application or
not. Looks like I am doing step 2 of the second link. Before we proceed
with the steps from the other.

> I wasn't quite clear from your email. Are you looking to just use SPI 
> until you get your paperwork cleaned up? Or are you actually looking to 
> build a relationship with SPI.

I am on a fact finding mission about the SPI. We have discussed turning
things over to the SFC/SPI. We are unsure if we will resolve things in
house, or clean things up, and hand over to another.

Either way we are going to clean things up before proceeding. Just
weighing out our options on proceeding from there. Many are in favor of
handing things over. Thus looking for information to reinforce that.

Anything we do with the SPI beyond gathering information would be a long
term proposition for the foreseeable future. We are not looking to the
SPI to help us clean up our present mess then move on. More the other
way around. Clean up mess, proceed with SPI or in house.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.
Gentoo/amd64/Java

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-nfp] Re: Gentoo Linux Project / Gentoo Foundation

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4370 bytes --]

Joshua,

On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 13:37 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 15:29:22 -0500
> "William L. Thomson Jr." <wltjr@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > I am on a fact finding mission about the SPI. We have discussed
> > turning things over to the SFC/SPI. We are unsure if we will resolve
> > things in house, or clean things up, and hand over to another.
> > 
> > Either way we are going to clean things up before proceeding. Just
> > weighing out our options on proceeding from there. Many are in favor
> > of handing things over. Thus looking for information to reinforce
> > that.
> 
> Well to give you a correlation. PostgreSQL (I am the PostgreSQL
> Liaison) was in the very same boat almost 2 years ago. We had a non
> profit application in the works that was stalled for various reasons.
> 
> This was particularly bad timing for us because we were about to start
> the run up to our 10th Anniversary conference and we needed to be able
> to accept money in a non profit fashion.
> 
> We handed it off to SPI and became an associated project. It has been
> very useful for us because it is extremely flexible.

Great thanks for that information as to your experiences and history.

>  You can be as
> involved or not involved as you like. As you can see, I chose to be
> involved because I believe that you must participate.

Also good to know. I think we might keep some trustees around or some
remains of our foundation after handing off the legal and accounting
aspects to the SPI. So we could make it a requirement that at least one
participates actively in the SPI on their board. Might be a council
member. Really not sure depends on if we keep some sort of a board of
trustees after the transition or not.

How did you all handle that at PostgreSQL? Did you have a board or
foundational body before?

> Basically by going with SPI you lose:
> 
> 1. Paperwork.
> 2. Administrative crud.
> 3. 5% of your donations + whatever processing costs there are (like CC
> charges)

That's minimal fees for the work being done. Likely any normal service
would charge more. That was one concern with regard to the SFC. Was how
they funded themselves and kept things going. Their incentive. Granted
money isn't being made of this. There is still overhead. Having a %
built in like that. Means you all should have the financial resources to
deal with any project that starts to scale up.

> What you gain:
> 
> 1. The ability to focus on your project
> 2. The ability to focus on your project
> 3. The ability to focus on your project

:)

> > 
> > Anything we do with the SPI beyond gathering information would be a
> > long term proposition for the foreseeable future. We are not looking
> > to the SPI to help us clean up our present mess then move on. More
> > the other way around. Clean up mess, proceed with SPI or in house.
> > 
> 
> Great. I can tell you that I would love to have another rabid FOSS
> project as part of us. I have ran Gentoo in the past (and in fact was
> using your docs to figure out bluetooth on Ubuntu ;)) just last night.
> 
> On a professional note, I believe to be truly successful you need to
> participate. It would be my hope that at a minimum your primary
> contributors would participate within SPI to help us continue to be
> successful.

I can surely see one or more of us participating in the SPI. Questions
there are:

     1. What would be the requirements for acceptance?
     2. Would we be considered?
     3. Do you all have a list or etc like the SFC provided of things we
        need to have in order before we could proceed?
     4. Anything else prior to the application process?

In order to apply, we will have to arrange a minimum a developer wide
vote. Usually takes 1/2 months there, but might be possible to expedite.
If we hunt each dev down and confirm they voted :)

However we would have to discuss the liaison position. Or any Gentoo
people that would sit on the SPI board. If trustees would remain, etc.

So possible more than one vote, but they might be able to take place
simultaneously. Vote for new trustees and vote for transition to SPI.

Thanks for the information and your time.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.
Gentoo/amd64/Java

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-nfp] Re: Gentoo Linux Project / Gentoo Foundation

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4873 bytes --]

Joshua,

On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 14:07 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:55:31 -0500
> "William L. Thomson Jr." <wltjr@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Also good to know. I think we might keep some trustees around or some
> > remains of our foundation after handing off the legal and accounting
> > aspects to the SPI. So we could make it a requirement that at least
> > one participates actively in the SPI on their board. Might be a
> 
> Well you must be elected to get on the board. Elections are based on
> being a contributing member. Obviously participating increases chances
> of being on the board.

My bad, I thought I read that. Sorry doing to much at once :) Didn't
mean to imply direct board membership. More like long term intentions.

> > council member. Really not sure depends on if we keep some sort of a
> > board of trustees after the transition or not.
> > 
> 
> PostgreSQL has two positions within SPI:
> 
> The Liaison (me)
> The Board Advisor (Robert Treat)
> 
> These don't have to be two people they can be one. So the immediately
> way to benefit is to have two of your most visible (and responsible)
> contributors be the two above for Gentoo.

Ok good to know. Ideally we would have two, and likely all of our
trustees a min be SPI members. But two of them fulfilling the liaison
and Board Adviser roles.

> > How did you all handle that at PostgreSQL? Did you have a board or
> > foundational body before?
> 
> Yes and we voted to let our application lapse. We then created the
> "PGFG" which is an informal group of contributors within PostgreSQL.
> 
> The following is the charter for the fundraising group:
> 
> http://fundraising.postgresql.org/Charter
> 
> And this is how the fundraising group votes:
> 
> http://fundraising.postgresql.org/Decisions

Thanks for the links gave them a quick read. Will look research more in
depth as time permits. Surely others will as well :)

> > I can surely see one or more of us participating in the SPI. Questions
> > there are:
> > 
> >      1. What would be the requirements for acceptance?
> 
> Your project has to be in line with our Corporate bylaws. I don't see a
> problem here.

Great

> >      2. Would we be considered?
> 
> Yes. I would sponsor a motion for you to be considered. If you get the
> application in within the next several weeks you could be a member
> before the end of February (assuming that all vote as I intend to at
> this time).

That would be really great to get this dealt with sooner than later.

> >      3. Do you all have a list or etc like the SFC provided of things
> > we need to have in order before we could proceed?
> 
> I am having trouble parsing this sentence. I think everything is
> covered in the two links I sent you previously:

Well if we like needed to reinstate the New Mexico entity. Or if that
was moot. Or any other legal requirements before being able to apply, or
be considered for acceptance.

Would assume we would need that, as to be able to hand over legal power
to the SPI.

> 
> > http://www.spi-inc.org/treasurer/associated-project-howto.html
> > http://www.spi-inc.org/secretary/joining-spi-projects.html/  
> 
> >      4. Anything else prior to the application process?
> 
> I don't think so. You may want to review here:
> 
> http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/by-laws
> 
> Just so you are sure you feel comfortable with our mission :). I don't
> see a problem.

Yeah I am comfortable with all that I have read so far. For the same
reasons we were considering the SFC. So not a big deal at all there.

> > In order to apply, we will have to arrange a minimum a developer wide
> > vote. Usually takes 1/2 months there, but might be possible to
> > expedite. If we hunt each dev down and confirm they voted :)
> > 
> 
> I know that feeling.
> 
> > However we would have to discuss the liaison position. Or any Gentoo
> > people that would sit on the SPI board. If trustees would remain, etc.
> > 
> 
> Well see above. Board is an elected position and when picking your
> Liaison remember that they effectively will control Gentoo's money.

Things we need to discuss and decided upon. Offhand would be nice to
have a remaining trustee board for Gentoo. With one designated as
liaison, and others able to step in if that person needs to step down.
Any decision approved by the group before the one liaison relays it to
the SPI. Just some off the cuff thoughts. But really has to come from
the community, either developer and user base. Or just developer.

Thanks much for all of your info Joshua. I think I have most all I need
to know now. We just need to figure out our course of action.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.
Gentoo/amd64/Java

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-nfp] Re: Gentoo Linux Project / Gentoo Foundation

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2783 bytes --]

Joshua,

On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 14:29 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 17:21:58 -0500
> "William L. Thomson Jr." <wltjr@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > Well if we like needed to reinstate the New Mexico entity. Or if that
> > was moot. Or any other legal requirements before being able to apply,
> > or be considered for acceptance.
> 
> Open Source projects are like cats, you can't herd them. We don't try
> to. If your project comes to us and says, "our project" wants to do
> foo... there ya go :).
> 
> The New Mexico entity, once you decide to join SPI basically becomes a
> redundant entity. Keep it if you like but it does not influence your
> abilities to be part of SPI.

Ok, it's being reinstated either way now. Worse case we can dissolve it
later on. Or keep it around for some other reasons. Or fallback if we
don't go with the SPI.

> > > 
> > > Well see above. Board is an elected position and when picking your
> > > Liaison remember that they effectively will control Gentoo's money.
> > 
> > Things we need to discuss and decided upon. Offhand would be nice to
> > have a remaining trustee board for Gentoo. With one designated as
> > liaison, and others able to step in if that person needs to step down.
> > Any decision approved by the group before the one liaison relays it to
> > the SPI. Just some off the cuff thoughts. But really has to come from
> > the community, either developer and user base. Or just developer.
> 
> If I may be so bold. Your positions with your community should be about
> who is best for the position and holds some level of "contributor"
> status.

Sure, and no worries on being bold. Please feel free, we are the ones
seeking information and advice.

> Developers are not always the best people (regardless of their hacking
> skills) to give a checkbook. Let's just be honest :).

True, it's just easier to identify how long a dev has been around verses
a contributor. But I don't think there would be to much objection to
someone outside the developer pool filling the positions.

> I for example do zero hacking (in the core code) for PostgreSQL.
> However I am recognized as one of the greater contributors for other
> things that I do for the project.

I think some of our user base isn't aware of all of our non-technical
needs. I am not sure we have done the best to express our needs there.
Areas we are also working on improving.

> > 
> > Thanks much for all of your info Joshua. I think I have most all I
> > need to know now. We just need to figure out our course of action.
> > 
> 
> No sweat. That is why I am here.

Much appreciated.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.
Gentoo/amd64/Java

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-nfp] SPI + Gentoo

[Joshua D. Drake]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 453 bytes --]

Hello,

I thought I would check in and see if there was any questions or
progress made in the potential relationship with SPI and Gentoo.

Joshua D. Drake 

-- 
The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/ 
PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL SPI Liaison | SPI Director |  PostgreSQL political pundit


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-nfp] Re: SPI + Gentoo

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 997 bytes --]

Joshua,

On Sat, 2008-02-23 at 12:06 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I thought I would check in and see if there was any questions or
> progress made in the potential relationship with SPI and Gentoo.

	We are presently holding elections for trustees[1]. Once elected if we
proceed with the SPI or not will be up to the new elected trustees.
Which if I am one of the elected trustees. I will surely be casting my
vote that we work with the SPI[2]. Not sure if I will be the liason or
not, but IMHO we have other things to focus on. Foundation wise, non
technical stuff, that's handled by our council.

	If you like I can follow up with you either way. But if I am not
elected, won't be taking any direct roles. So kinda up in the air atm,
till elections end.

     1. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/elections/foundation-200802.xml
     2. http://dev.gentoo.org/~wltjr/manifestos/2008_gentoo_board_of_trustees.xml


-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.
Gentoo/amd64/Java

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]