On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 07:15:44PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sun, 2019-07-14 at 10:59 -0400, Aaron Bauman wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 11:25:55PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2019-07-13 at 22:15 +0100, Roy Bamford wrote:
> > 
> > <snip>
> > 
> > > > Maybe an example will help?
> > > > What group or individual within Gentoo will determine if directing
> > > > the umbrella to buy a Power9 system for the distro is a good idea 
> > > > or not.
> > > 
> > > The Council, obviously.  As it should be doing it today, except by some
> > > weird mistake Foundation decides to skip it entirely and authorize
> > > technical decisions on its own.
> > > 
> > 
> > What?
> > 
> > Buying an asset requires monies which requires some legal body with
> > representatives to purchase said item. Roy's example above was not a "technical"
> > decision.
> > 
> > Entertaining the response though, you *could* break this into (2) separate
> > authorizations...
> > 
> > 1. Project $x requests a Power9 machine from council
> > 
> > 2. the council says/agrees we need a Power9 machine to carry out some technical
> > function submitted for from project $x
> > 
> > 3. They authorize said procurement of a Power9 machine
> > 
> > 4. The "purse holder" (current Foundation or umbrella) goes and buys said Power9
> > machine.
> > 
> > That is really not neccasary though.  No different then how the Foundation just
> > purchases the new sparc asset.
> > 
> 
> That's exactly the model I would like to pursue.  For each purchase
> request, Council authorizes the purpose, while Trustees authorize
> the finances.
> 
> -- 
> Best regards,
> Michał Górny
> 

I believe that is a highly reasonable and functional model.

-- 
Cheers,
Aaron