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

["Michał Górny" <mgorny@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5363 bytes --]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 12:28:35 -0500
"William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, January 11, 2017 5:50:50 PM EST Michał Górny wrote:
> > 
> > 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).  
> 
> If as a Developer  you opt out of Foundation membership. You cannot turn 
> around and claim discrimination to something you chose to leave.

What if I *have* to opt out because of my employment or local law? For
example, if my contract forbids me from being *enlisted*
in corporations working in the IT sector?

It's easy to argue whether things can or can't happen but will you
defend me against a lawsuit from my employer? Will the Foundation
guarantee that? As I see it, keeping a low profile should be
developer's right.

> > 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.  
> 
> Which is why they would be better served to voice their opinions to Trustees. 
> Let Trustees approach council if they feel it is best. If Council feels the 
> need they could consult Developers.
>  
> > 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.  
> 
> Just because Foundation, Council, and Gentoo project want to do something. 
> Does not mean YOU have to do that. At the same time a project should not be 
> just left up to those scratching itches. If by some means all that individual 
> itch scratching leads to something collectively great.
> 
> At some point has to be some big picture to how all the stuff fits together.
> Are we a organized team/project or just individuals doing what ever?

We are individuals who can get along eventually and make a pretty
decent distro as a result. For some time already.

> > How can a user who has barely any contact with Gentoo developers be
> > able to choose good candidates for the Council?  
> 
> Users would never have ability to vote for Council. Foundation members can 
> only vote for Foundation stuff. Which Council voting would be left to 
> Developers.

...which would be meaningless with Trustees having the power to
override pretty much everything for no apparent reason.

> > 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?  
> 
> So the Foundation and Trustees should be legally liable for all your actions 
> without any influence?
> 
> You can do what ever you want and we will be liable for your actions. Do you 
> want to be liable for all my actions. That is asking way to much of a Trustee 
> IMHO. Be 100% responsible and legally liable with no influence.

I'm afraid we don't understand each other. I still don't see how
liability is different for person who is a *member* of the Foundation,
and for a developer who is not a member of the Foundation.

> > 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.  
> 
> There are many in the community who either cannot or do not want to be come 
> Developers in any capacity. Just the same as those who do not want to be 
> members in the Foundation.

So why are the people who don't want to be developers privileged over
people who don't want to be Foundation members?

> > 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.  
> 
> True, but just because no one has sued does not mean the project should not be 
> aware of such liabilities and seek to protect itself from law suit.

You can protect Gentoo from liability without having total control over
every aspect of Gentoo. There's a difference between power to make
decisions that prevent liability and power to make any decisions.

> > 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.  
> 
> That is not how Daniel sees it, and does not agree with such separation. That 
> is what people need to understand. What Gentoo has become it was not intended 
> to be, nor did it start that way.

http://www.funtoo.org/Making_the_Distribution,_Part_1

And here we are, arguing that Gentoo should be lead by people 'who
aren't writing any code (nor do they have any intention to). Instead they
spend their time talking about more important things. You know, those
managerial issues'.

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

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