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 9C298138334 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 18:22:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3CB95E0A97; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 18:22:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pg1-f173.google.com (mail-pg1-f173.google.com [209.85.215.173]) (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 04348E0A97 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 18:22:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pg1-f173.google.com with SMTP id r1-v6so790658pgp.11 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 11:22:03 -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=jtWXCw3p2IKEhI3EgIkQ3hJaM0nOhCDOM4ILPDiYX3Q=; b=qI14SE1jZbOG7n8SUek4Hc67s8DGW8ZbiT0J8j+QUyb129i/1FwfkLuO9p/bkr00bA q2YSxY8aOEQXKj40c2SQNP6U/yhP4MXUOEQSrUngL2ABfzS+DtDDV3TYMOhYBc0aA8dX ZZliWttz/S+OMf1EJ595hcaboEncxWlv04PqfA7EMvul38WGKPcvkCLe1/QlaUSyxn2b E5ailurG4AoPXichna2DQb9FC8cTgwW8XSYIXDHDma4lkau9tsNPcvQIQC+edbapP7+e 3ylk/6RJTox9WsLGlwzePb6+4Nqc/lgas/btS84Ep+iOXKuSY0D90kmeuV3akE7WRau6 n65Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlF+SyAGy/UE68DpNfFih5InE1YsH3BEjxijsWfiDg0A4ZCCQjJM BMu/yuG16QqHsA3B2QmjmNisWZf/+ZCTfghfdFOStQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpeqFW86Dz/B4JKrrNBlnY+Zwnx8KzoS5DeS1o3DsT0UoV5qfG5YkVFDjeRymBp/4NevsIKJwZLTyfHQUD+L6hA= X-Received: by 2002:a63:5b0d:: with SMTP id p13-v6mr2664517pgb.202.1531851722588; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 11:22:02 -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> In-Reply-To: From: Rich Freeman Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 14:21:51 -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: 421b7a51-b070-4ad3-bcbc-6feb469888b1 X-Archives-Hash: 82739494864667f865286c1af213c90f 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. > 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. 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. > 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. Bylaws are supposed to be general principles we operate on. They don't codify individual operating decisions. Those decisions should be documented, but elsewhere. Also, we don't need to spin up a new legal entity just to change the bylaws. They can be changed at any time fairly easily actually, assuming the Trustees concur. 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... -- Rich