From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2EA3B138334 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 19:15:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A7FC7E0AB1; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 19:15:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pl0-f41.google.com (mail-pl0-f41.google.com [209.85.160.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A2A8E0AB1 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 19:15:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pl0-f41.google.com with SMTP id p23-v6so881234plo.6 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 12:15:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=wvQFYgGhz/mYmcL5M/jcrx+6aA93LIJktguhHwTy1wo=; b=VZ39T5hI7Wh9B2Zz638+g+GWu8iqwfW0HWAmRWYjZQVXtR6ZDyOQ6CaS6COPmpxeZb jJm5bhEwptxlFrRk1T1ue1lLIpecZ3gDxYRVcCrLxshGbtRNnm8hGQacccjL6Iu9I3hj wrqjWgSKHtW6r1kYiIHfV1WamC2LI65p34f5X1mcVWQcgrhYYIf4y/wKqfMh2RgZCHo2 dpk6oo13ErjvS/uXKJ4xW3/IK0GNYEeMRXBH31w0F/1WSRhVWKZ/zq9rnSozUvPWrFFS g+hLSUUYWvZECSENKzW+hLYS/jDsDTdYusJXKy7xazbE2zhHZTJXIOvvgC7ugbIR6zyu j5IQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlHuWDFyo/4OLRH/ct8ecEoowlNFD3D1mf1ddcqzxoLXJB3l4e35 ZVJKcy2ksq/tHzE9TJEAxLC2K9pI412voAAMzOHuPc7X X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpdWKjCdtHlhJ1Znw4llGWi6vVofBTk7jfo6GZerwyyMllMRJLm6SubU5t9BmEZJIJf27A8iCiB5PtznfOity7M= X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:bb8d:: with SMTP id m13-v6mr2792445pls.46.1531854933036; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 12:15:33 -0700 (PDT) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20180716212141.GA11692@monkey> <20180717190458.GC11692@monkey> In-Reply-To: <20180717190458.GC11692@monkey> From: Rich Freeman Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 15:15:21 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-nfp] Trustee nomination: Aaron Bauman (bman) To: gentoo-nfp Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Archives-Salt: b649ff6d-96d7-4f2c-854f-5aa3891ed711 X-Archives-Hash: 58a828e472a8791a76a4dcf69fdd9f3b On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 3:04 PM Aaron Bauman wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 02:21:51PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 2:01 PM Roy Bamford wrote: > > > > > > Also, we would need to operate two NFPs when at this election > > > we only secured enough candidates to staff one ... if they are all > > > ranked above _reopen_nominations in the poll. > > > > > > > ++ > > > > This just sounds like twice as many opportunities to get things wrong, > > and it splits our resources. > > > > You didn't read my previous reply to Roy. It also does not split > resources. Plain and simple. I sent my reply before receiving yours, so obviously I didn't read it. Even so, running two non-profits splits our money into two bank accounts. It is a division of resources no matter what. > > > > To follow on your example, there are several competing 2FA > > > solutions with differing feature sets. While Nitrokey may be > > > selected for the comparative value assesment still > > > needs to be performed or the trustees would be neglecting their > > > duty by rubber stamping council decisions. > > > > Why would we think that the trustees would do any better a job at this > > than the Council? Why would the Council want to waste money? There > > is a limited pool of resources, and if the Council is making decisions > > like this I'd imagine most developers would vote to select people they > > trust to make these decisions. > > No one said the council will do any better at this than the council. Roy suggested that the Trustees would need to assess value, which implies that the Council won't be doing this. > Why would this be a waste of money? I never said it would be a waste of money. I asked Roy why he thought the Council would want to waste money that the Trustees might have to stop. > Your paragraph is full of assumptions and no digestion of what > I wrote. I didn't quote anything you wrote, or reply to anything you wrote. > > > If we went to an umbrella org then there is a good chance that the > > Council will end up making these kinds of decisions. > > > > Besides, why would we want multiple decision-making bodies, where one > > body can choose to invest in something, and then another body can > > ensure that all that investment is wasted by denying complementary > > investment? That could go either way. > > > > It is not multiple decision making bodies. The council is leading and > the Foundation is providing. The only split is that of legal and > financial decision making for (hopefully) obvious reasons. I wasn't replying to your proposal. I was replying to Roy's criticism of your proposal. You proposed one decision-making body. Roy replied and said that we need to stick with two. THAT was what I was responding to. > > > Such bylaws would make me nervous ... what happens if the new > > > legal entity has insuffcient funds to pay these people. I suppose it > > > just goes bankrupt, like any other legal entity. > > > > Honestly, I don't see any point in codifying random decisions in bylaws. > > Which random decisions? Ok, now I was replying to something you wrote: "e.g. The council votes to adopt the FHS as a standard of which all Gentoo developers must adhere within the Gentoo distribution. The trustees will enact this by amending the by-laws." Why would we stick FHS in the by-laws? > > > Bylaws are supposed to be general principles we operate on. They > > don't codify individual operating decisions. Those decisions should > > be documented, but elsewhere. > > > > Sure, by-laws can codify anything you want to set into statute. It > allows for enforcement and legal soundness. So do any other decisions made by the Trustees. They're all enforceable. They all represent policy. Bylaws are more about how the org operates than its individual decisions. > > That said, I'm all for paying people to do jobs that need to be done > > reliably when volunteers aren't cutting it (and historically, they > > haven't been). This is a big argument in favor of an umbrella, > > because there is an economy in splitting these costs across many orgs. > > But, if we were independent I'd rather pay a CPA to do the taxes > > properly/etc. And then we'd make sure that not a dime gets paid to > > anybody without the CPA knowing about it... > > The sad part is, that if years hadn't gone by and it was done > incrementally over time this wouldn't be such a burden. Again, see my > reply to Roy regarding umbrellas. Sure, but there is a reason it happened, and I suspect it will continue to happen, because in the end 99% of Gentoo contributors don't care if the paperwork gets done correctly. There is no reason an individual couldn't do our taxes, but it is important that they get done... -- Rich