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 600431382C5 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2018 15:10:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3DCD9E0949; Sat, 7 Apr 2018 15:10:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (dev.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (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 E883EE0946 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2018 15:10:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2a01:e34:eeaa:6bd0:4ecc:6aff:fe03:1cfc]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: aballier) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 675FC335C43 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2018 15:10:07 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2018 17:10:01 +0200 From: Alexis Ballier To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Meeting agenda - Council meeting 2018-04-08 Message-ID: <20180407171001.66763675@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: References: <871sfxkqo1.fsf@gentoo.org> <87lge4xw93.fsf@gentoo.org> <20180406021508.GA4824@linux1.home> <20180406023938.exac37p7gaccynll@gentoo.org> <20180407150220.03331a8b@gentoo.org> Organization: Gentoo X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.16.0 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: a1e5608a-846b-47bb-9478-44d5f9869ca2 X-Archives-Hash: 6a08a09003f1a235af652123ddd83e9f On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 10:16:26 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 9:02 AM, Alexis Ballier > wrote: > > On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 16:44:47 -0400 > > Rich Freeman wrote: > > > >> > >> Presumably it would work similarly to the current state - we'd > >> encourage people to donate via whatever organization we want the > >> most money flowing into at the time. If we need more money in the > >> Foundation bank account, we'd point donors to the Foundation. If > >> we needed more money in some other bank account, we'd point donors > >> to that one instead. > > > > Wow. So, presumably, we'd be showing a great lack of > > professionalism to potential donors by our inability to solve > > ridiculous internal disputes and asking them to pick sides. > > Budgeting and delegating management of it is what usually allows to > > maintain each sub-entity bank account (or virtual bank account) on > > tracks, but the requirement for this to work is to be able to agree > > in the first place... > > I wasn't suggesting having individuals "pick sides." If we wanted one > org to have more money we'd have the other org turn away donors and > refer them to the other, unless for some reason it makes more sense to > have that particular donor contribute to that particular organization. This still creates confusion, and IMHO confusion there is extremely bad. Not sure how current donors proceed, but redirecting them will likely make some of them back off instead of following the redirection. [...] > A big part of the problem right now is that our current organizational > model has two groups more-or-less in-charge, and it is difficult to > get agreement on which one should be on top, in part because the model > that makes the most sense legally (Foundation on top) has the worst > organization fit (we're a bunch of programmers, not > accountants/lawyers). My guess is that if most contributors were > given a choice they'd rather just see the legal issues "go away" and > not have to worry about them. The problem is that with our current > model that isn't possible, and due to our history it seems to be > pretty hard to change that, and it will be even harder if we're > fighting ourselves. Our model makes it even worse that we have one > leadership board composed of volunteers who specifically want to be > involved in the legal stuff, which is going to create more conflict. > > IMO getting another organization to help us out in our current state > should be legally possible, but would probably require a bit of > salesmanship to pull off. If half the community actively takes steps > to sabotage whatever solution the other half tries to attempt we're > probably not going to succeed at anything. This will be especially > hard if due to disagreements on other issues there are individuals who > aim to emphasize the disagreements that already exist. Sure, another org is a great idea, but what I'm worried about is that for now this gives me more the impression of council backstabbing the foundation than trying to improve anything. [...]