On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 12:48 PM, Daniel Robbins <drobbins@funtoo.org> wrote:

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 10:43 AM, Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> wrote:

Specifically regarding your proposal, I'm not sure what outcome you are actually expecting. Explicitly stating that the Foundation owns and controls assets that it literally owns and controls seems a bit tautological (and thus of little value.) It might be useful to state that in that event of a 'hostile takeover' type situation the board will pursue all legal remedies; but this too seems somewhat tautological (but I'm open to more leeway here.)

Yes, it is unclear as to how specifically this is protected against, and if it is the case that sufficient safeguards are in place, and that everyone involved in -infra is aware that the

Foundation essentially is ultimately 'in charge' of the servers, then this issues, as far as I can tell, is resolved.

I think for now its the general culture from the current infrastructure lead (robbat2) and the draft policy that tries to clearly describe the situation. At least the current infra team is aware of a number of past incidents (one being the one you mentioned, but there are others) and IMHO avoiding impropriety (and avoiding even the appearance of impropriety) is pretty high upon our list.

I'll try to aim for the policy to be out by the next meeting; but the infra lead is pretty busy with work so it might not be finalized.

-A

-Daniel