Re: [gentoo-project] Merging Trustees and Council / Developers and Foundation - 1.0 reply

["Michał Górny" <mgorny@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 10070 bytes --]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 10:56:16 -0500
"William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, January 11, 2017 3:46:34 PM EST Michał Górny wrote:
> >
> > 1. I do not mind encouraging more developers to join the Foundation, or
> > even making it opt-out. However, I do oppose discriminating developers
> > who decide not to join the Foundation.  
> 
> There should not be any discrimination. Just an understanding by opting out 
> you give up your voice/vote.

And how is that not discriminating? On one hand you talk of giving
people outside the project the means to influence it, yet you
explicitly take away the right of voting for people outside
the Foundation (even though they are in the project, after all).

>  
> > 2. I agree on having a single pool of voters. However, I believe those
> > should be limited to active Gentoo developers, independently of
> > Foundation membership.  
> 
> If one pool, not sure you can opt out of Foundation. Since that means you 
> cannot vote for Foundation, then you may no be able to vote for Council.
> 
> Plus may be contestable to merge beyond the voting issue. Easier to not merge 
> and leave as is now.
> 
> Also most projects give means for people outside to be part of the project. 
> Non-contributing members. Why should members of the community not have any 
> say? It is just a vote. The Trustees would have to present to Council and 
> those two bodies decide if it is best for Gentoo.
> 
> Only reason to not give the community any representation is to say we do not 
> care what you think, you have no say in Gentoo. Only those with a vested 
> interest have a say. It is one way to go but not a very open way IMHO.
> 
> Gentoo should welcome everyone's input. Some may have technical contributions, 
> others documentation. Maybe some have good ideas for Gentoo.

I'm not sure if you've seen that but Gentoo developers lately have been
harassed by multiple users who had no to minor contributions yet
believed they are the best people to tell developers how do their work.

Accepting input is one thing. Letting people who do not do current
Gentoo work (= aren't affected by the decisions directly) decide on
what others should do is another.

How can a user who has barely any contact with Gentoo developers be
able to choose good candidates for the Council?

> > First of all, I'd like to point out how I see the 'problem' of many
> > developers not being part of the Foundation. I think that in most
> > cases, it's just a matter of 'simplicity': why would I bother joining
> > Gentoo Foundation if it does not affect my Gentoo work?  
> 
> Because you care about Gentoo. You care to see your work protected and not 
> another taking credit and profiting from your work.
> 
> Without a Foundation per se, someone could take your work, say it was there 
> own. Potentially selling such and making a profit. The Foundation is there to 
> protect you, your work/contributions, etc.
>  
> Also to make sure you are not sued personally for your work. Though most FOSS 
> software has disclaimer for such. By contributing to Gentoo per se, Gentoo 
> takes that liability from you.
> 
> > I think that many Gentoo developers, especially foreigners, have
> > serious doubts about implications of being a Foundation member. Even if
> > elaborate US lawyers can claim otherwise, we're talking about local law
> > here, and for example I had enough of the law without having to wonder
> > about the implications of formal foreign non-profit corporation
> > membership.  
> 
> If you had a legal issue around FOSS who would you turn to? Does the EFF or 
> SLFC have an entity in your country? This is a problem any project would face.

I don't see how either of those arguments are related to me being
a Foundation member or not. After all, the Foundation protects *all*
Gentoo work, independently of whether a developer doing it is a member
or not, doesn't it?

> > As long as there is no lawful reason to require
> > anyone to be a Foundation member to do X, I don't think we should
> > enforce that. And unless I'm mistaken, not even Trustees are legally
> > 
> > required to be members of the Foundation (modulo current Bylaws):
> > | Directors need not be residents of New Mexico or members of
> > | the corporation unless the articles of incorporation or the bylaws
> > | so require.
> > 
> > http://www.sos.state.nm.us/uploads/files/Corporations/ch53Art8.pdf  
> 
> That would mean if a Developer who opted out of Foundation membership could 
> still run and be elected as a Trustee. Which would likely give them 
> membership, opt them back in.

I don't see a strict reason to do that, nor I see a strict reason not
to do that. Just pointing out that lawfully membership could be
considered fully irrelevant.

> > Single pool of voters
> > =====================
> > 
> > I agree that having two disjoint pools of voters for two important
> > boards running Gentoo might be bad. However, following the point made
> > above I don't think that Foundation membership should be relevant to
> > the ability to vote.
> > 
> > Therefore, I think it would be best if both the Council and Trustees
> > were elected by active Gentoo developers, in a manner consistent with
> > how Council is elected nowadays.  
> 
> It could be best, but could also result in a insiders only club.

Excuse me but how is the Foundation membership different? Foundation
members still have to be approved by Trustees.

> > This removes the current Foundation members who are not developers from
> > the voter pool. I'm sorry but I believe it's more appropriate that
> > people who actively develop Gentoo (and have proven to understand its
> > the organizational structure via passing the quizzes) get a vote
> > in deciding how Gentoo is run.  
> 
> I think it is  a big mistake to limit things to Developers only. I am not 
> aware of any Developers with say a legal background. What if members of the 
> community do? Should they really be excluded?
> 
> Developers do not always know best, and are not versed in all fields. This is a 
> close minded approach to only allowing a voice from within. Also what does it 
> say to the community?
> 
> There could be users of Gentoo who have more experience than new developers. 
> Their experience or patronage matters not? Who cares what you develop if no 
> one uses it, it does not really matter does it?

They can get recruited. It's not hard. Getting a developer status
(without commit access) mostly involves proving that you're accustomed
to organization matters of how Gentoo operates.

Do you really think Gentoo users should start telling developers how
Gentoo should be operating without learning how it's operating right
now first?

> > While I believe it's important to remember the history of Gentoo
> > and acknowledge past contributions to it, I don't think that solely
> > past contributions should imply the ability to decide (however
> > indirectly) how Gentoo is run nowadays.  
> 
> A day will come when you may not contribute anymore. Does that mean all your 
> past contributions immediately become worthless? Does that mean your 
> experience in the project did not result in any wisdom you could share with 
> others?

No. But it means that I'm no longer in position to tell others what to
do, or vote who the best candidate for Council/Trustee/etc. is.

I don't mind past contributors having advisory roles for Gentoo. I do
mind having them vote on people when they no longer are interested in
directly participating in the complete developer community.

> > Council, on the other hand, focuses on technical (and quasi-social)
> > matters. It's important for Council members to be capable of good
> > judgment both on technical and community matters, and being able to
> > provide resolutions that are beneficial to the community. The location
> > is pretty much irrelevant here, and the role could be considered
> > informal by many.  
> 
> Council also needs to work with Trustees to ensure such is not taking on legal 
> liability.

I believe the legal liability concern is a rare enough issue for
Trustees to be involved rather when that is a possible case rather than
having them approve every step of everyone else.

> > I have yet to see the final proposal to throw my vote but I already
> > start to dislike the direction it is heading towards. With no good
> > rationale, and no good problem statement it seems like a change for
> > the sake of changing things and/or replacing people.  
> 
> Keep something in mind. Trustees could, not saying they would, change legal 
> and structure aspects of Gentoo with no opposition. If you were not happy, if 
> you are not a member of the Foundation as it stands now. You could do nothing 
> legally, Nor could the council or anyone.
> 
> Acting like the Foundation is just a steward is a misnomer. It is good the 
> Trustees are seeking feedback and approval but they are not legally required 
> to do such. Once elected they do have legal authority to enact their will.

Yes, I know that they can. And they also know that by doing this they
are going to lose many useful contributors. Gentoo can't exist without
people doing the work, even if the common mailing list complainers
finally get what they wanted and are satisfied.

It's not perfect but I believe Gentoo could prevail. Maybe it'd even be
beneficial long-term, since it would let the developers actually doing
a lot of work to split from those who mostly talk. Pretty much getting
Gentoo back to the roots, as Daniel Robbins seen it.

Of course, there's the trademark issue. It could end up in the 'FFmpeg
fiasco' where actual development would continue in a separate entity,
and Gentoo Foundation would just 'steal' their work and publish it as
the official Gentoo.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 963 bytes --]