* [gentoo-project] Meeting agenda - Council meeting 2018-04-08
@ 2018-04-03 1:46 Matthias Maier
2018-04-03 5:32 ` Ulrich Mueller
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: Matthias Maier @ 2018-04-03 1:46 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project, gentoo-dev-announce
The next Council meeting will beo on Sunday 2018-04-08, 18:00 UTC in the
#gentoo-council channel on Freenode.
Agenda:
0. Use the 5 minutes before the Council meeting (i.e. 17:55 - 18:00 UTC) to
express the Council's admiration for cats.
1. Role call
--- Technical agenda items ---
2. Vote on the final EAPI 7 draft [1]; references [2]
3. Banning EAPI 4 for new ebuilds (and EAPI bumps of existing ebuilds) [3]
4. Deprecating EAPI 5 [3]
5. Establish a timeline for the switch to the 17.1 profiles (aka
SYMLINK_LIB=no). [4]
--- Non-technical agenda items ---
6. The council was requested to provide their input on updating the "Gentoo
Social Contract" [5]. Specifically, it was suggested to update the
preamble to:
"This social contract is intended to clearly describe the overall
development policies and standards of the Gentoo project development
team. Potential improvements to the social contract should be submitted
to the Gentoo Linux bug tracker at https://bugs.gentoo.org, and assigned
to gentoo-trustees. Specific questions about social contract, and
discussion about potential future improvements can be posted to the
gentoo-project mailing list."
7. The council was requested to discuss the introduction of a voting mechanism
similar to the "general resolution" [6] as known to the Debian project [7]
8. The council was requested to discuss and vote on the following motion [8]
"The Gentoo council shall directly contact "Software in the Public Interest
Inc." (SPI), with the intention of Gentoo becoming a SPI Associated Project,
independent of the Gentoo Foundation."
9. Open floor
References:
[1] https://dev.gentoo.org/~ulm/pms/7-draft/ in the version of 2018-04-02
[2] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/91df2e7bf8485c2c5abba33ea3063809
https://bugs.gentoo.org/630422
https://bugs.gentoo.org/424283
https://bugs.gentoo.org/489458
[3] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/e453732a4613485ea26bf754c40df087
[4] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/ecd981409a1fad7911a3547e9b0a315f
https://bugs.gentoo.org/506276
[5] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/7dc299781f08ccc6f7b5dca08b4acb06
https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/8c8534195597ca34ebb3e3bb0a042b3e
[6] https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution#item-4
[7] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/973be0a662b3cc74aa118a1128dcac9e
[8] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/de1d47212a9c71a40fc1717ea460cad4
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] Meeting agenda - Council meeting 2018-04-08
2018-04-03 1:46 [gentoo-project] Meeting agenda - Council meeting 2018-04-08 Matthias Maier
@ 2018-04-03 5:32 ` Ulrich Mueller
2018-04-03 13:19 ` Matthias Maier
2018-04-07 19:33 ` Matt Turner
2 siblings, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: Ulrich Mueller @ 2018-04-03 5:32 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1336 bytes --]
>>>>> On Mon, 02 Apr 2018, Matthias Maier wrote:
> 6. The council was requested to provide their input on updating the "Gentoo
> Social Contract" [5]. Specifically, it was suggested to update the
> preamble to:
> [...]
I had posted an alternative suggestion, which presumably was lost in
the noise in gentoo-project:
https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/9ccbc0e981ad4213ac7ad6edd73ab6cd
Basically, two changes (which could be voted on together or
separately):
a. Change "gentoo-dev" to "gentoo-project".
b. Remove the third sentence from the preamble, which I believe to be
redundant. Namely: "It is generally very similar to it except that
certain parts have been clarified and augmented while other parts
deemed redundant have been removed."
With both changes applied, the preamble would read:
| This social contract is intended to clearly describe the overall
| development policies and standards of the Gentoo project development
| team. Parts of this document have been derived from the Debian
| Social Contract. Comments are welcome. Please send them to our
| gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org mailing list.
Ulrich
> [5] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/7dc299781f08ccc6f7b5dca08b4acb06
> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/8c8534195597ca34ebb3e3bb0a042b3e
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] Meeting agenda - Council meeting 2018-04-08
2018-04-03 1:46 [gentoo-project] Meeting agenda - Council meeting 2018-04-08 Matthias Maier
2018-04-03 5:32 ` Ulrich Mueller
@ 2018-04-03 13:19 ` Matthias Maier
2018-04-06 2:15 ` William Hubbs
2018-04-07 19:33 ` Matt Turner
2 siblings, 1 reply; 44+ messages in thread
From: Matthias Maier @ 2018-04-03 13:19 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project, gentoo-dev-announce
The meeting agenda has been slightly ammended:
The next Council meeting will be on Sunday 2018-04-08, 18:00 UTC in the
#gentoo-council channel on Freenode.
Agenda:
0. Use the 5 minutes before the Council meeting (i.e. 17:55 - 18:00 UTC) to
express the Council's admiration for cats.
1. Roll call
--- Technical agenda items ---
2. Vote on the final EAPI 7 draft [1]; references [2]
3. Banning EAPI 4 for new ebuilds (and EAPI bumps of existing ebuilds) [3]
4. Deprecating EAPI 5 [3]
5. Establish a timeline for the switch to the 17.1 profiles (aka
SYMLINK_LIB=no). [4]
--- Non-technical agenda items ---
6. The council was requested to provide their input on updating the "Gentoo
Social Contract" [5]. Specifically, it was suggested to update the
preamble to:
"This social contract is intended to clearly describe the overall
development policies and standards of the Gentoo project development
team. Potential improvements to the social contract should be submitted
to the Gentoo Linux bug tracker at https://bugs.gentoo.org, and assigned
to gentoo-trustees. Specific questions about social contract, and
discussion about potential future improvements can be posted to the
gentoo-project mailing list."
ulm suggested an alternative wording (with minimal changes to the
original) [5a]:
"This social contract is intended to clearly describe the overall
development policies and standards of the Gentoo project development
team. Parts of this document have been derived from the Debian Social
Contract. Comments are welcome. Please send them to our
gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org mailing list."
7. The council was requested to discuss the introduction of a voting mechanism
similar to the "general resolution" [6] as known to the Debian project [7]
8. The council was requested to discuss and vote on the following motion [8]
"The Gentoo council shall directly contact "Software in the Public Interest
Inc." (SPI), with the intention of Gentoo becoming a SPI Associated Project,
independent of the Gentoo Foundation."
9. Open floor
References:
[1] https://dev.gentoo.org/~ulm/pms/7-draft/ in the version of 2018-04-02
[2] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/91df2e7bf8485c2c5abba33ea3063809
https://bugs.gentoo.org/630422
https://bugs.gentoo.org/424283
https://bugs.gentoo.org/489458
[3] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/e453732a4613485ea26bf754c40df087
[4] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/ecd981409a1fad7911a3547e9b0a315f
https://bugs.gentoo.org/506276
[5] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/7dc299781f08ccc6f7b5dca08b4acb06
https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/8c8534195597ca34ebb3e3bb0a042b3e
[5a] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/2a250ad39db7b400072603f4705e8f57
[6] https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution#item-4
[7] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/973be0a662b3cc74aa118a1128dcac9e
[8] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/de1d47212a9c71a40fc1717ea460cad4
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] Meeting agenda - Council meeting 2018-04-08
2018-04-03 13:19 ` Matthias Maier
@ 2018-04-06 2:15 ` William Hubbs
2018-04-06 2:39 ` Matthew Thode
0 siblings, 1 reply; 44+ messages in thread
From: William Hubbs @ 2018-04-06 2:15 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project; +Cc: trustees
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 601 bytes --]
On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 08:19:52AM -0500, Matthias Maier wrote:
*snip*
> 8. The council was requested to discuss and vote on the following motion [8]
>
> "The Gentoo council shall directly contact "Software in the Public Interest
> Inc." (SPI), with the intention of Gentoo becoming a SPI Associated Project,
> independent of the Gentoo Foundation."
As a newly accepted member of the Gentoo foundation, I am making sure
the trustees are aware of this agenda item. Is it ok for us to join an
alternate organization such as is being proposed?
Thanks,
William
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] Meeting agenda - Council meeting 2018-04-08
2018-04-06 2:15 ` William Hubbs
@ 2018-04-06 2:39 ` Matthew Thode
2018-04-06 11:43 ` Rich Freeman
0 siblings, 1 reply; 44+ messages in thread
From: Matthew Thode @ 2018-04-06 2:39 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project, trustees
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 799 bytes --]
On 18-04-05 21:15:08, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 08:19:52AM -0500, Matthias Maier wrote:
>
> *snip*
>
> > 8. The council was requested to discuss and vote on the following motion [8]
> >
> > "The Gentoo council shall directly contact "Software in the Public Interest
> > Inc." (SPI), with the intention of Gentoo becoming a SPI Associated Project,
> > independent of the Gentoo Foundation."
>
> As a newly accepted member of the Gentoo foundation, I am making sure
> the trustees are aware of this agenda item. Is it ok for us to join an
> alternate organization such as is being proposed?
>
Nope, though I imagine the council already knows that (the council has
requested this in the past iirc).
--
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] Meeting agenda - Council meeting 2018-04-08
2018-04-06 2:39 ` Matthew Thode
@ 2018-04-06 11:43 ` Rich Freeman
2018-04-06 15:29 ` Matthew Thode
2018-04-06 19:46 ` David Abbott
0 siblings, 2 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: Rich Freeman @ 2018-04-06 11:43 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project; +Cc: Gentoo Trustees
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 10:39 PM, Matthew Thode
<prometheanfire@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 18-04-05 21:15:08, William Hubbs wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 08:19:52AM -0500, Matthias Maier wrote:
>>
>> *snip*
>>
>> > 8. The council was requested to discuss and vote on the following motion [8]
>> >
>> > "The Gentoo council shall directly contact "Software in the Public Interest
>> > Inc." (SPI), with the intention of Gentoo becoming a SPI Associated Project,
>> > independent of the Gentoo Foundation."
>>
>> As a newly accepted member of the Gentoo foundation, I am making sure
>> the trustees are aware of this agenda item. Is it ok for us to join an
>> alternate organization such as is being proposed?
>>
>
> Nope, though I imagine the council already knows that (the council has
> requested this in the past iirc).
>
I don't think he was suggesting that the Foundation should become
associated with SPI, but rather the distro. The wording is a bit
sloppy, IMO.
Maybe something like this might convey what I suspect was the intent:
The council shall directly contact "Software in the Public Interest
Inc." (SPI), with the intention of the project becoming a SPI
Associated Project,
independent of the Gentoo Foundation.
I'd suggest a better model might be:
The council shall directly contact "Software in the Public Interest
Inc." (SPI), with the intention of the project becoming a SPI
Associated Project,
in addition to being supported by the Gentoo Foundation.
I think we're getting a bit hung up on the word "Gentoo" referring to
both a legal entity and a community/project supported by the entity.
Legally it only means the first. However, I can think of no legal
reason that the group of people associated with Gentoo couldn't also
associate with other legal entities, as long as Gentoo's legal rights
to the copyrights/trademarks are respected. That is just freedom of
association.
IMO having multiple organizations supporting the distro could be
beneficial. I'd concede that it would be unconventional. Legally the
Gentoo name would only belong to one of them, but the work itself
could be funded and supported via any of them.
If nothing else this might also be a way to reduce the workload on the
Foundation so that they can focus more on getting the paperwork caught
up vs actually having to pay for infra.
--
Rich
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] Meeting agenda - Council meeting 2018-04-08
2018-04-06 11:43 ` Rich Freeman
@ 2018-04-06 15:29 ` Matthew Thode
2018-04-06 19:46 ` David Abbott
1 sibling, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: Matthew Thode @ 2018-04-06 15:29 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Rich Freeman; +Cc: gentoo-project, Gentoo Trustees
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2813 bytes --]
On 18-04-06 07:43:31, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 10:39 PM, Matthew Thode
> <prometheanfire@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On 18-04-05 21:15:08, William Hubbs wrote:
> >> On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 08:19:52AM -0500, Matthias Maier wrote:
> >>
> >> *snip*
> >>
> >> > 8. The council was requested to discuss and vote on the following motion [8]
> >> >
> >> > "The Gentoo council shall directly contact "Software in the Public Interest
> >> > Inc." (SPI), with the intention of Gentoo becoming a SPI Associated Project,
> >> > independent of the Gentoo Foundation."
> >>
> >> As a newly accepted member of the Gentoo foundation, I am making sure
> >> the trustees are aware of this agenda item. Is it ok for us to join an
> >> alternate organization such as is being proposed?
> >>
> >
> > Nope, though I imagine the council already knows that (the council has
> > requested this in the past iirc).
> >
>
> I don't think he was suggesting that the Foundation should become
> associated with SPI, but rather the distro. The wording is a bit
> sloppy, IMO.
>
> Maybe something like this might convey what I suspect was the intent:
>
> The council shall directly contact "Software in the Public Interest
> Inc." (SPI), with the intention of the project becoming a SPI
> Associated Project,
> independent of the Gentoo Foundation.
>
> I'd suggest a better model might be:
>
> The council shall directly contact "Software in the Public Interest
> Inc." (SPI), with the intention of the project becoming a SPI
> Associated Project,
> in addition to being supported by the Gentoo Foundation.
>
> I think we're getting a bit hung up on the word "Gentoo" referring to
> both a legal entity and a community/project supported by the entity.
> Legally it only means the first. However, I can think of no legal
> reason that the group of people associated with Gentoo couldn't also
> associate with other legal entities, as long as Gentoo's legal rights
> to the copyrights/trademarks are respected. That is just freedom of
> association.
>
> IMO having multiple organizations supporting the distro could be
> beneficial. I'd concede that it would be unconventional. Legally the
> Gentoo name would only belong to one of them, but the work itself
> could be funded and supported via any of them.
>
> If nothing else this might also be a way to reduce the workload on the
> Foundation so that they can focus more on getting the paperwork caught
> up vs actually having to pay for infra.
>
Ah, that makes sense, if it is a desired thing to happen it'd probably
be a good idea to talk with the Foundation about it as well (we don't
want to work against eachother, open communication, etc).
--
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] Meeting agenda - Council meeting 2018-04-08
2018-04-06 11:43 ` Rich Freeman
2018-04-06 15:29 ` Matthew Thode
@ 2018-04-06 19:46 ` David Abbott
2018-04-06 20:44 ` Rich Freeman
2018-04-06 22:16 ` Andreas K. Huettel
1 sibling, 2 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: David Abbott @ 2018-04-06 19:46 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Rich Freeman; +Cc: gentoo-project, Gentoo Trustees
On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 7:43 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 10:39 PM, Matthew Thode
> <prometheanfire@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> On 18-04-05 21:15:08, William Hubbs wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 08:19:52AM -0500, Matthias Maier wrote:
>>>
>>> *snip*
>>>
>>> > 8. The council was requested to discuss and vote on the following motion [8]
>>> >
>>> > "The Gentoo council shall directly contact "Software in the Public Interest
>>> > Inc." (SPI), with the intention of Gentoo becoming a SPI Associated Project,
>>> > independent of the Gentoo Foundation."
>>>
>>> As a newly accepted member of the Gentoo foundation, I am making sure
>>> the trustees are aware of this agenda item. Is it ok for us to join an
>>> alternate organization such as is being proposed?
>>>
>>
>> Nope, though I imagine the council already knows that (the council has
>> requested this in the past iirc).
>>
>
> I don't think he was suggesting that the Foundation should become
> associated with SPI, but rather the distro. The wording is a bit
> sloppy, IMO.
>
> Maybe something like this might convey what I suspect was the intent:
>
> The council shall directly contact "Software in the Public Interest
> Inc." (SPI), with the intention of the project becoming a SPI
> Associated Project,
> independent of the Gentoo Foundation.
>
> I'd suggest a better model might be:
>
> The council shall directly contact "Software in the Public Interest
> Inc." (SPI), with the intention of the project becoming a SPI
> Associated Project,
> in addition to being supported by the Gentoo Foundation.
>
> I think we're getting a bit hung up on the word "Gentoo" referring to
> both a legal entity and a community/project supported by the entity.
> Legally it only means the first. However, I can think of no legal
> reason that the group of people associated with Gentoo couldn't also
> associate with other legal entities, as long as Gentoo's legal rights
> to the copyrights/trademarks are respected. That is just freedom of
> association.
>
> IMO having multiple organizations supporting the distro could be
> beneficial. I'd concede that it would be unconventional. Legally the
> Gentoo name would only belong to one of them, but the work itself
> could be funded and supported via any of them.
>
> If nothing else this might also be a way to reduce the workload on the
> Foundation so that they can focus more on getting the paperwork caught
> up vs actually having to pay for infra.
So the funding is coming from the council? What will SPI use to pay infra with?
>
> --
> Rich
Regards,
--
David Abbott (dabbott)
Gentoo Foundation Secretary
http://dev.gentoo.org/~dabbott/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] Meeting agenda - Council meeting 2018-04-08
2018-04-06 19:46 ` David Abbott
@ 2018-04-06 20:44 ` Rich Freeman
2018-04-06 20:53 ` M. J. Everitt
2018-04-07 13:02 ` Alexis Ballier
2018-04-06 22:16 ` Andreas K. Huettel
1 sibling, 2 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: Rich Freeman @ 2018-04-06 20:44 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project; +Cc: Gentoo Trustees
On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 3:46 PM, David Abbott <dabbott@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> So the funding is coming from the council? What will SPI use to pay infra with?
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.
--
Rich
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] Meeting agenda - Council meeting 2018-04-08
2018-04-06 20:44 ` Rich Freeman
@ 2018-04-06 20:53 ` M. J. Everitt
2018-04-07 13:02 ` Alexis Ballier
1 sibling, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: M. J. Everitt @ 2018-04-06 20:53 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 782 bytes --]
On 06/04/18 21:44, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 3:46 PM, David Abbott <dabbott@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> So the funding is coming from the council? What will SPI use to pay infra with?
> 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.
>
I don't see this ending well. There is already a problem "keeping the
lights on". What happens when the council choose not to pay -infra or
the foundation for the use of 'their' assets .. what happens then?
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] Meeting agenda - Council meeting 2018-04-08
2018-04-06 19:46 ` David Abbott
2018-04-06 20:44 ` Rich Freeman
@ 2018-04-06 22:16 ` Andreas K. Huettel
2018-04-06 22:27 ` Matthew Thode
1 sibling, 1 reply; 44+ messages in thread
From: Andreas K. Huettel @ 2018-04-06 22:16 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project; +Cc: David Abbott, Rich Freeman, Gentoo Trustees
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 747 bytes --]
Am Freitag, 6. April 2018, 21:46:31 CEST schrieb David Abbott:
> >
> > If nothing else this might also be a way to reduce the workload on the
> > Foundation so that they can focus more on getting the paperwork caught
> > up vs actually having to pay for infra.
>
> So the funding is coming from the council? What will SPI use to pay infra
> with?
Funding is coming from the same sources as where it comes from now. Given that
the new association starts from zero, it will in the beginning not have much
money.
Just see it as having a second bank account, or having a second payment
provider in parallel.
--
Andreas K. Hüttel
dilfridge@gentoo.org
Gentoo Linux developer
(council, toolchain, perl, libreoffice, comrel)
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 981 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] Meeting agenda - Council meeting 2018-04-08
2018-04-06 22:16 ` Andreas K. Huettel
@ 2018-04-06 22:27 ` Matthew Thode
2018-04-07 6:39 ` Michał Górny
0 siblings, 1 reply; 44+ messages in thread
From: Matthew Thode @ 2018-04-06 22:27 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Andreas K. Huettel
Cc: gentoo-project, David Abbott, Rich Freeman, Gentoo Trustees
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 828 bytes --]
On 18-04-07 00:16:20, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Am Freitag, 6. April 2018, 21:46:31 CEST schrieb David Abbott:
>
> > >
> > > If nothing else this might also be a way to reduce the workload on the
> > > Foundation so that they can focus more on getting the paperwork caught
> > > up vs actually having to pay for infra.
> >
> > So the funding is coming from the council? What will SPI use to pay infra
> > with?
>
> Funding is coming from the same sources as where it comes from now. Given that
> the new association starts from zero, it will in the beginning not have much
> money.
>
> Just see it as having a second bank account, or having a second payment
> provider in parallel.
I'm not sure what it'd get us, we've had and have multple accounts
already.
--
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] Meeting agenda - Council meeting 2018-04-08
2018-04-06 22:27 ` Matthew Thode
@ 2018-04-07 6:39 ` Michał Górny
2018-04-07 18:18 ` Matthew Thode
2018-04-09 15:29 ` Michał Górny
0 siblings, 2 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: Michał Górny @ 2018-04-07 6:39 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project, Andreas K. Huettel
Cc: David Abbott, Rich Freeman, Gentoo Trustees
W dniu pią, 06.04.2018 o godzinie 17∶27 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
napisał:
> On 18-04-07 00:16:20, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> > Am Freitag, 6. April 2018, 21:46:31 CEST schrieb David Abbott:
> >
> > > >
> > > > If nothing else this might also be a way to reduce the workload on the
> > > > Foundation so that they can focus more on getting the paperwork caught
> > > > up vs actually having to pay for infra.
> > >
> > > So the funding is coming from the council? What will SPI use to pay infra
> > > with?
> >
> > Funding is coming from the same sources as where it comes from now. Given that
> > the new association starts from zero, it will in the beginning not have much
> > money.
> >
> > Just see it as having a second bank account, or having a second payment
> > provider in parallel.
>
> I'm not sure what it'd get us, we've had and have multple accounts
> already.
>
Let me put it bluntly like this: all of our current resources are
endangered by incompetence of Trustees since the forming
of the Foundation. You can trivialize the problem this as much as
you need to but this is the fact until we have a really good
confirmation that the paperwork is clean.
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] Meeting agenda - Council meeting 2018-04-08
2018-04-06 20:44 ` Rich Freeman
2018-04-06 20:53 ` M. J. Everitt
@ 2018-04-07 13:02 ` Alexis Ballier
2018-04-07 14:16 ` Rich Freeman
2018-04-07 14:54 ` Andreas K. Huettel
1 sibling, 2 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: Alexis Ballier @ 2018-04-07 13:02 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 16:44:47 -0400
Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 3:46 PM, David Abbott <dabbott@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > So the funding is coming from the council? What will SPI use to pay
> > infra with?
>
> 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...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] Meeting agenda - Council meeting 2018-04-08
2018-04-07 13:02 ` Alexis Ballier
@ 2018-04-07 14:16 ` Rich Freeman
2018-04-07 14:43 ` M. J. Everitt
` (3 more replies)
2018-04-07 14:54 ` Andreas K. Huettel
1 sibling, 4 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: Rich Freeman @ 2018-04-07 14:16 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 9:02 AM, Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 16:44:47 -0400
> Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> 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.
I agree that ultimately we need one group to be overall in charge for
this to work, because we don't want two legal entities fighting each
other.
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.
I think that trying to bring in another org to take on some of the
load makes a lot of sense, but I'm skeptical that it will be possible
if the Trustees are opposed to the idea. That said, I have a fear
that this problem will just continue to grow worse until something
snaps, and the result may or may not be a viable distro.
--
Rich
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] Meeting agenda - Council meeting 2018-04-08
2018-04-07 14:16 ` Rich Freeman
@ 2018-04-07 14:43 ` M. J. Everitt
2018-04-07 15:10 ` Alexis Ballier
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: M. J. Everitt @ 2018-04-07 14:43 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 358 bytes --]
On 07/04/18 15:16, Rich Freeman wrote [excerpted]:
> That said, I have a fear
> that this problem will just continue to grow worse until something
> snaps, and the result may or may not be a viable distro.
>
I'm glad someone reasonably "high up" *inside* Gentoo has acknowledged
that there is a real possibility of this happening.
Finally ..
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] Meeting agenda - Council meeting 2018-04-08
2018-04-07 13:02 ` Alexis Ballier
2018-04-07 14:16 ` Rich Freeman
@ 2018-04-07 14:54 ` Andreas K. Huettel
2018-04-07 15:16 ` Alexis Ballier
1 sibling, 1 reply; 44+ messages in thread
From: Andreas K. Huettel @ 2018-04-07 14:54 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 540 bytes --]
> 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.
Nope. If we do this professionally, it will be the same as with the shop where
you can buy with either VISA or Mastercard.
That said, we're already airing all our dirty laundry in public. I don't see
how it can get much worse.
--
Andreas K. Hüttel
dilfridge@gentoo.org
Gentoo Linux developer
(council, toolchain, perl, libreoffice, comrel)
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 981 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] Meeting agenda - Council meeting 2018-04-08
2018-04-07 14:16 ` Rich Freeman
2018-04-07 14:43 ` M. J. Everitt
@ 2018-04-07 15:10 ` Alexis Ballier
2018-04-07 16:44 ` R0b0t1
2018-04-07 18:37 ` Matthew Thode
3 siblings, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: Alexis Ballier @ 2018-04-07 15:10 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 10:16:26 -0400
Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 9:02 AM, Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 16:44:47 -0400
> > Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> 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.
[...]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] Meeting agenda - Council meeting 2018-04-08
2018-04-07 14:54 ` Andreas K. Huettel
@ 2018-04-07 15:16 ` Alexis Ballier
2018-04-07 15:42 ` Alexis Ballier
2018-04-07 18:39 ` Andreas K. Huettel
0 siblings, 2 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: Alexis Ballier @ 2018-04-07 15:16 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
On Sat, 07 Apr 2018 16:54:03 +0200
"Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Nope. If we do this professionally, it will be the same as with the
> shop where you can buy with either VISA or Mastercard.
Not exactly like credit cards: At least here, donations to NFPs get you
tax discounts. You need to justify it on your tax returns and if
something is off you'll get a fine plus interests on what you should
have paid but did not.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] Meeting agenda - Council meeting 2018-04-08
2018-04-07 15:16 ` Alexis Ballier
@ 2018-04-07 15:42 ` Alexis Ballier
2018-04-07 18:39 ` Andreas K. Huettel
1 sibling, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: Alexis Ballier @ 2018-04-07 15:42 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 17:16:46 +0200
Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Apr 2018 16:54:03 +0200
> "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> > > 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.
> >
> > Nope. If we do this professionally, it will be the same as with the
> > shop where you can buy with either VISA or Mastercard.
>
> Not exactly like credit cards: At least here, donations to NFPs get
> you tax discounts. You need to justify it on your tax returns and if
> something is off you'll get a fine plus interests on what you should
> have paid but did not.
>
And to expand and exagerate a bit: Redirecting a donation to some other
org starts to look like "Please deposit this money on account #1234 at
the VerySecret Bank of Switzerland".
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] Meeting agenda - Council meeting 2018-04-08
2018-04-07 14:16 ` Rich Freeman
2018-04-07 14:43 ` M. J. Everitt
2018-04-07 15:10 ` Alexis Ballier
@ 2018-04-07 16:44 ` R0b0t1
2018-04-07 18:37 ` Matthew Thode
3 siblings, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: R0b0t1 @ 2018-04-07 16:44 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2108 bytes --]
On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 9:16 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 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.
>
Please be careful - it is not the job of accountants and lawyers to
run things. Their job, should they be necessary, is to keep track of
details; the people hoping to accomplish something outside of the
systems they maintain need to decide on something useful to do.
Moreover, as I have tried to impress upon you, the average person is
able to understand the laws they are subject to (and, in fact, the
interpretation of laws is often left up to a reconstruction of a
layman's interpretation of them). It is likely not going to be
possible to avoid retaining legal counsel in the event of e.g. a
lawsuit, but don't give up before starting.
On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 8:46 PM, Matthias Maier <tamiko@gentoo.org> wrote:
> The next Council meeting will beo on Sunday 2018-04-08, 18:00 UTC in the
> #gentoo-council channel on Freenode.
>
>
> Agenda:
>
> 0. Use the 5 minutes before the Council meeting (i.e. 17:55 - 18:00 UTC) to
> express the Council's admiration for cats.
I have attached a picture of one of my cats for the council's
consideration. Mr. Frisco is a very good cat, so I let him lay on my
soft blankets.
Cheers,
R0b0t1
[-- Attachment #2: 20180331_085309[1].jpg --]
[-- Type: image/jpeg, Size: 4547826 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] Meeting agenda - Council meeting 2018-04-08
2018-04-07 6:39 ` Michał Górny
@ 2018-04-07 18:18 ` Matthew Thode
2018-04-07 18:32 ` Rich Freeman
2018-04-09 15:29 ` Michał Górny
1 sibling, 1 reply; 44+ messages in thread
From: Matthew Thode @ 2018-04-07 18:18 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Michał Górny
Cc: gentoo-project, Andreas K. Huettel, David Abbott, Rich Freeman,
Gentoo Trustees
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1607 bytes --]
On 18-04-07 08:39:39, Michał Górny wrote:
> W dniu pią, 06.04.2018 o godzinie 17∶27 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
> napisał:
> > On 18-04-07 00:16:20, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> > > Am Freitag, 6. April 2018, 21:46:31 CEST schrieb David Abbott:
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If nothing else this might also be a way to reduce the workload on the
> > > > > Foundation so that they can focus more on getting the paperwork caught
> > > > > up vs actually having to pay for infra.
> > > >
> > > > So the funding is coming from the council? What will SPI use to pay infra
> > > > with?
> > >
> > > Funding is coming from the same sources as where it comes from now. Given that
> > > the new association starts from zero, it will in the beginning not have much
> > > money.
> > >
> > > Just see it as having a second bank account, or having a second payment
> > > provider in parallel.
> >
> > I'm not sure what it'd get us, we've had and have multple accounts
> > already.
> >
>
> Let me put it bluntly like this: all of our current resources are
> endangered by incompetence of Trustees since the forming
> of the Foundation. You can trivialize the problem this as much as
> you need to but this is the fact until we have a really good
> confirmation that the paperwork is clean.
>
Thanks, at least it's finally admitted why this is a topic. Are you
willing to help clear up the paperwork? It's not an easy task. IIRC
the only remaining task to finish is the tax work. Once that's done it
unblocks many things.
--
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] Meeting agenda - Council meeting 2018-04-08
2018-04-07 18:18 ` Matthew Thode
@ 2018-04-07 18:32 ` Rich Freeman
2018-04-07 18:41 ` Matthew Thode
0 siblings, 1 reply; 44+ messages in thread
From: Rich Freeman @ 2018-04-07 18:32 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Matthew Thode
Cc: Michał Górny, gentoo-project, Andreas K. Huettel,
David Abbott, Gentoo Trustees
On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 2:18 PM, Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 18-04-07 08:39:39, Michał Górny wrote:
>> W dniu pią, 06.04.2018 o godzinie 17∶27 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
>> napisał:
>> > On 18-04-07 00:16:20, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>> > > Am Freitag, 6. April 2018, 21:46:31 CEST schrieb David Abbott:
>> > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > If nothing else this might also be a way to reduce the workload on the
>> > > > > Foundation so that they can focus more on getting the paperwork caught
>> > > > > up vs actually having to pay for infra.
>> > > >
>> > > > So the funding is coming from the council? What will SPI use to pay infra
>> > > > with?
>> > >
>> > > Funding is coming from the same sources as where it comes from now. Given that
>> > > the new association starts from zero, it will in the beginning not have much
>> > > money.
>> > >
>> > > Just see it as having a second bank account, or having a second payment
>> > > provider in parallel.
>> >
>> > I'm not sure what it'd get us, we've had and have multple accounts
>> > already.
>> >
>>
>> Let me put it bluntly like this: all of our current resources are
>> endangered by incompetence of Trustees since the forming
>> of the Foundation. You can trivialize the problem this as much as
>> you need to but this is the fact until we have a really good
>> confirmation that the paperwork is clean.
>>
>
> Thanks, at least it's finally admitted why this is a topic. Are you
> willing to help clear up the paperwork? It's not an easy task. IIRC
> the only remaining task to finish is the tax work. Once that's done it
> unblocks many things.
>
IMO one of the biggest weaknesses of our current model is that there
is paperwork to complete in the first place.
If there are ways to reduce the overall risk without having to
actually deal with the paperwork it would be desirable to consider
them.
That said, if somebody is willing to fix things, it certainly would
help. That is, if we use that as an opportunity to fix the underlying
issues instead of just calling it done and waiting for the paperwork
to end up being behind by a few years again.
--
Rich
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] Meeting agenda - Council meeting 2018-04-08
2018-04-07 14:16 ` Rich Freeman
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2018-04-07 16:44 ` R0b0t1
@ 2018-04-07 18:37 ` Matthew Thode
2018-04-07 19:01 ` Andreas K. Huettel
3 siblings, 1 reply; 44+ messages in thread
From: Matthew Thode @ 2018-04-07 18:37 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4479 bytes --]
On 18-04-07 10:16:26, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 9:02 AM, Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 16:44:47 -0400
> > Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> 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.
>
> I agree that ultimately we need one group to be overall in charge for
> this to work, because we don't want two legal entities fighting each
> other.
>
> 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.
>
> I think that trying to bring in another org to take on some of the
> load makes a lot of sense, but I'm skeptical that it will be possible
> if the Trustees are opposed to the idea. That said, I have a fear
> that this problem will just continue to grow worse until something
> snaps, and the result may or may not be a viable distro.
>
How about we solve the problems rather then running into a strangers
arms? While having two orgs manage the same group is technically
possible I highly doubt it'll happen for multiple reasons.
First, like you said, the trustees must approve it as it's a business
and legal decision. If council goes ahead with this it'd likely go
against section 4.9 of the foundation bylaws and if they are a member
of the foundation they could be removed (possible, not certain).
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Bylaws#Section_4.9._Termination_from_Membership.
Second, I highly doubt that any other org would be willing to manage the
project without at least some sort of license/trademark agreement
between the foundation and them. Most likely, they'd want to own the
copyright/trademark.
Third, I also doubt any org stepping in would want to manage one of two
accounts (bank wise), they'd want to manage all the money.
Fourth, I don't think any group would be willing to be co-managers with
another. We'd be replacing one structure, where two groups think they
are in charge but one legally is, with two groups who think they are in
charge and both legally are.
--
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] Meeting agenda - Council meeting 2018-04-08
2018-04-07 15:16 ` Alexis Ballier
2018-04-07 15:42 ` Alexis Ballier
@ 2018-04-07 18:39 ` Andreas K. Huettel
1 sibling, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: Andreas K. Huettel @ 2018-04-07 18:39 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 979 bytes --]
Am Samstag, 7. April 2018, 17:16:46 CEST schrieb Alexis Ballier:
> On Sat, 07 Apr 2018 16:54:03 +0200
>
> "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > Nope. If we do this professionally, it will be the same as with the
> > shop where you can buy with either VISA or Mastercard.
>
> Not exactly like credit cards: At least here, donations to NFPs get you
> tax discounts. You need to justify it on your tax returns and if
> something is off you'll get a fine plus interests on what you should
> have paid but did not.
To my best knowledge, tax deductions are not possible for the Gentoo
Foundation (but they are possible for SPI).
--
Andreas K. Hüttel
dilfridge@gentoo.org
Gentoo Linux developer
(council, toolchain, perl, libreoffice, comrel)
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 981 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] Meeting agenda - Council meeting 2018-04-08
2018-04-07 18:32 ` Rich Freeman
@ 2018-04-07 18:41 ` Matthew Thode
0 siblings, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: Matthew Thode @ 2018-04-07 18:41 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2831 bytes --]
On 18-04-07 14:32:38, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 2:18 PM, Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On 18-04-07 08:39:39, Michał Górny wrote:
> >> W dniu pią, 06.04.2018 o godzinie 17∶27 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
> >> napisał:
> >> > On 18-04-07 00:16:20, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> >> > > Am Freitag, 6. April 2018, 21:46:31 CEST schrieb David Abbott:
> >> > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > If nothing else this might also be a way to reduce the workload on the
> >> > > > > Foundation so that they can focus more on getting the paperwork caught
> >> > > > > up vs actually having to pay for infra.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > So the funding is coming from the council? What will SPI use to pay infra
> >> > > > with?
> >> > >
> >> > > Funding is coming from the same sources as where it comes from now. Given that
> >> > > the new association starts from zero, it will in the beginning not have much
> >> > > money.
> >> > >
> >> > > Just see it as having a second bank account, or having a second payment
> >> > > provider in parallel.
> >> >
> >> > I'm not sure what it'd get us, we've had and have multple accounts
> >> > already.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Let me put it bluntly like this: all of our current resources are
> >> endangered by incompetence of Trustees since the forming
> >> of the Foundation. You can trivialize the problem this as much as
> >> you need to but this is the fact until we have a really good
> >> confirmation that the paperwork is clean.
> >>
> >
> > Thanks, at least it's finally admitted why this is a topic. Are you
> > willing to help clear up the paperwork? It's not an easy task. IIRC
> > the only remaining task to finish is the tax work. Once that's done it
> > unblocks many things.
> >
>
> IMO one of the biggest weaknesses of our current model is that there
> is paperwork to complete in the first place.
>
> If there are ways to reduce the overall risk without having to
> actually deal with the paperwork it would be desirable to consider
> them.
>
> That said, if somebody is willing to fix things, it certainly would
> help. That is, if we use that as an opportunity to fix the underlying
> issues instead of just calling it done and waiting for the paperwork
> to end up being behind by a few years again.
>
If you think we are willing to fall behind again I think you are
mistaken. The trustees have been left to piece together a puzzle that
was left unattended for a long time, long enough that some pieces have
gone missing. Once that puzzle is back together it'll be an entirely
diferent level of effort to keep together (or add to). Right now we
don't want to add to it as that could complicate the process of piecing
it back together.
--
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] Meeting agenda - Council meeting 2018-04-08
2018-04-07 18:37 ` Matthew Thode
@ 2018-04-07 19:01 ` Andreas K. Huettel
2018-04-07 19:07 ` Matthew Thode
0 siblings, 1 reply; 44+ messages in thread
From: Andreas K. Huettel @ 2018-04-07 19:01 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project; +Cc: Matthew Thode
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1195 bytes --]
Am Samstag, 7. April 2018, 20:37:21 CEST schrieb Matthew Thode:
> Second, I highly doubt that any other org would be willing to manage the
> project without at least some sort of license/trademark agreement
> between the foundation and them.
As long as no public representation takes place, I see no need for that.
However, this is a valid point that needs to be considered.
> Third, I also doubt any org stepping in would want to manage one of two
> accounts (bank wise), they'd want to manage all the money.
Incorrect.
(And if you ever bothered to actually read my mails, I already pointed that
out.)
Quoting the SPI web pages: "SPI does not prohibit the project from having a
similar relationship with other fiscal sponsors."
> We'd be replacing one structure, where two groups think they
> are in charge but one legally is, with two groups who think they are in
> charge and both legally are.
That sentence brings up a philosophical question. What happens if you think
you're in charge, but nobody else does? (maybe except veremit)
--
Andreas K. Hüttel
dilfridge@gentoo.org
Gentoo Linux developer
(council, toolchain, perl, libreoffice, comrel)
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 981 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] Meeting agenda - Council meeting 2018-04-08
2018-04-07 19:01 ` Andreas K. Huettel
@ 2018-04-07 19:07 ` Matthew Thode
2018-04-07 19:15 ` Rich Freeman
0 siblings, 1 reply; 44+ messages in thread
From: Matthew Thode @ 2018-04-07 19:07 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Andreas K. Huettel; +Cc: gentoo-project
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1625 bytes --]
On 18-04-07 21:01:38, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Am Samstag, 7. April 2018, 20:37:21 CEST schrieb Matthew Thode:
>
> > Second, I highly doubt that any other org would be willing to manage the
> > project without at least some sort of license/trademark agreement
> > between the foundation and them.
>
> As long as no public representation takes place, I see no need for that.
> However, this is a valid point that needs to be considered.
>
> > Third, I also doubt any org stepping in would want to manage one of two
> > accounts (bank wise), they'd want to manage all the money.
>
> Incorrect.
>
> (And if you ever bothered to actually read my mails, I already pointed that
> out.)
>
> Quoting the SPI web pages: "SPI does not prohibit the project from having a
> similar relationship with other fiscal sponsors."
>
Thanks for this, I haven't had time to catch up everywhere, this list
suddenly went into high traffic mode...
> > We'd be replacing one structure, where two groups think they
> > are in charge but one legally is, with two groups who think they are in
> > charge and both legally are.
>
> That sentence brings up a philosophical question. What happens if you think
> you're in charge, but nobody else does? (maybe except veremit)
>
Eventually, if the person thinking they were in charge (but not actually
in charge) were to do something intolerable in the view of the group
actually in charge, they'd be fired / kicked out. The could possibly
extend to the removing of licencing/trademark privileges if any exist.
--
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] Meeting agenda - Council meeting 2018-04-08
2018-04-07 19:07 ` Matthew Thode
@ 2018-04-07 19:15 ` Rich Freeman
2018-04-07 19:21 ` Matthew Thode
0 siblings, 1 reply; 44+ messages in thread
From: Rich Freeman @ 2018-04-07 19:15 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project; +Cc: Andreas K. Huettel
On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 3:07 PM, Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 18-04-07 21:01:38, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>> Am Samstag, 7. April 2018, 20:37:21 CEST schrieb Matthew Thode:
>>
>> > Second, I highly doubt that any other org would be willing to manage the
>> > project without at least some sort of license/trademark agreement
>> > between the foundation and them.
>>
>> As long as no public representation takes place, I see no need for that.
>> However, this is a valid point that needs to be considered.
>>
>> > Third, I also doubt any org stepping in would want to manage one of two
>> > accounts (bank wise), they'd want to manage all the money.
>>
>> Incorrect.
>>
>> (And if you ever bothered to actually read my mails, I already pointed that
>> out.)
>>
>> Quoting the SPI web pages: "SPI does not prohibit the project from having a
>> similar relationship with other fiscal sponsors."
>>
>
> Thanks for this, I haven't had time to catch up everywhere, this list
> suddenly went into high traffic mode...
>
>> > We'd be replacing one structure, where two groups think they
>> > are in charge but one legally is, with two groups who think they are in
>> > charge and both legally are.
>>
>> That sentence brings up a philosophical question. What happens if you think
>> you're in charge, but nobody else does? (maybe except veremit)
>>
>
> Eventually, if the person thinking they were in charge (but not actually
> in charge) were to do something intolerable in the view of the group
> actually in charge, they'd be fired / kicked out. The could possibly
> extend to the removing of licencing/trademark privileges if any exist.
That last bit only applies if the people in charge own any
trademarks/etc. There wouldn't be much to be done with licenses since
Gentoo is FOSS.
If the Foundation got kicked out it seems like they only thing they
could try to do is ask everybody to change the project name. Maybe
they could try to seize control over the domain name or something.
--
Rich
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] Meeting agenda - Council meeting 2018-04-08
2018-04-07 19:15 ` Rich Freeman
@ 2018-04-07 19:21 ` Matthew Thode
0 siblings, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: Matthew Thode @ 2018-04-07 19:21 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2406 bytes --]
On 18-04-07 15:15:18, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 3:07 PM, Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On 18-04-07 21:01:38, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> >> Am Samstag, 7. April 2018, 20:37:21 CEST schrieb Matthew Thode:
> >>
> >> > Second, I highly doubt that any other org would be willing to manage the
> >> > project without at least some sort of license/trademark agreement
> >> > between the foundation and them.
> >>
> >> As long as no public representation takes place, I see no need for that.
> >> However, this is a valid point that needs to be considered.
> >>
> >> > Third, I also doubt any org stepping in would want to manage one of two
> >> > accounts (bank wise), they'd want to manage all the money.
> >>
> >> Incorrect.
> >>
> >> (And if you ever bothered to actually read my mails, I already pointed that
> >> out.)
> >>
> >> Quoting the SPI web pages: "SPI does not prohibit the project from having a
> >> similar relationship with other fiscal sponsors."
> >>
> >
> > Thanks for this, I haven't had time to catch up everywhere, this list
> > suddenly went into high traffic mode...
> >
> >> > We'd be replacing one structure, where two groups think they
> >> > are in charge but one legally is, with two groups who think they are in
> >> > charge and both legally are.
> >>
> >> That sentence brings up a philosophical question. What happens if you think
> >> you're in charge, but nobody else does? (maybe except veremit)
> >>
> >
> > Eventually, if the person thinking they were in charge (but not actually
> > in charge) were to do something intolerable in the view of the group
> > actually in charge, they'd be fired / kicked out. The could possibly
> > extend to the removing of licencing/trademark privileges if any exist.
>
> That last bit only applies if the people in charge own any
> trademarks/etc. There wouldn't be much to be done with licenses since
> Gentoo is FOSS.
>
> If the Foundation got kicked out it seems like they only thing they
> could try to do is ask everybody to change the project name. Maybe
> they could try to seize control over the domain name or something.
>
This is true, I think I said it somewhere else in this thread, but if
everyone wanted to go and rename things that'd be a valid attack
strategy against the trustees.
--
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] Meeting agenda - Council meeting 2018-04-08
2018-04-03 1:46 [gentoo-project] Meeting agenda - Council meeting 2018-04-08 Matthias Maier
2018-04-03 5:32 ` Ulrich Mueller
2018-04-03 13:19 ` Matthias Maier
@ 2018-04-07 19:33 ` Matt Turner
2018-04-07 19:43 ` Matthew Thode
2018-04-07 19:55 ` Andreas K. Huettel
2 siblings, 2 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: Matt Turner @ 2018-04-07 19:33 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Gentoo project list
On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 6:46 PM, Matthias Maier <tamiko@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 8. The council was requested to discuss and vote on the following motion [8]
>
> "The Gentoo council shall directly contact "Software in the Public Interest
> Inc." (SPI), with the intention of Gentoo becoming a SPI Associated Project,
> independent of the Gentoo Foundation."
The X.Org Foundation joined SPI recently, after failing to file its
taxes and losing its 501(c)(3) status. As far as I can tell everyone
has been pleased with the results, especially not having to deal with
the paperwork.
But, what the fuck is going on? Perhaps if the Council is interested
in a topic they would spare a few keystrokes to explain the rationale
for such a change. From the perspective of someone who hasn't follow
the Foundation closely, this whole thread looks like a spat between
Council members and the Foundation trustees which is bizarre to say
the least.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] Meeting agenda - Council meeting 2018-04-08
2018-04-07 19:33 ` Matt Turner
@ 2018-04-07 19:43 ` Matthew Thode
2018-04-07 19:55 ` Andreas K. Huettel
1 sibling, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: Matthew Thode @ 2018-04-07 19:43 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1348 bytes --]
On 18-04-07 12:33:57, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 6:46 PM, Matthias Maier <tamiko@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > 8. The council was requested to discuss and vote on the following motion [8]
> >
> > "The Gentoo council shall directly contact "Software in the Public Interest
> > Inc." (SPI), with the intention of Gentoo becoming a SPI Associated Project,
> > independent of the Gentoo Foundation."
>
> The X.Org Foundation joined SPI recently, after failing to file its
> taxes and losing its 501(c)(3) status. As far as I can tell everyone
> has been pleased with the results, especially not having to deal with
> the paperwork.
>
> But, what the fuck is going on? Perhaps if the Council is interested
> in a topic they would spare a few keystrokes to explain the rationale
> for such a change. From the perspective of someone who hasn't follow
> the Foundation closely, this whole thread looks like a spat between
> Council members and the Foundation trustees which is bizarre to say
> the least.
>
ATM, this seems like council wants a new org to manage them. The
foundation reached out to SPI iirc (ask alicef, she was the lead). They
didn't want to take on another org at the time. If they are willing now
we could try and reopen talks with them.
--
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] Meeting agenda - Council meeting 2018-04-08
2018-04-07 19:33 ` Matt Turner
2018-04-07 19:43 ` Matthew Thode
@ 2018-04-07 19:55 ` Andreas K. Huettel
2018-04-07 20:01 ` M. J. Everitt
2018-04-07 20:01 ` Matthew Thode
1 sibling, 2 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: Andreas K. Huettel @ 2018-04-07 19:55 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2880 bytes --]
Am Samstag, 7. April 2018, 21:33:57 CEST schrieb Matt Turner:
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 6:46 PM, Matthias Maier <tamiko@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > 8. The council was requested to discuss and vote on the following motion
> > [8]>
> > "The Gentoo council shall directly contact "Software in the Public
> > Interest
> > Inc." (SPI), with the intention of Gentoo becoming a SPI Associated
> > Project, independent of the Gentoo Foundation."
>
> The X.Org Foundation joined SPI recently, after failing to file its
> taxes and losing its 501(c)(3) status. As far as I can tell everyone
> has been pleased with the results, especially not having to deal with
> the paperwork.
>
> But, what the fuck is going on? Perhaps if the Council is interested
> in a topic they would spare a few keystrokes to explain the rationale
> for such a change. From the perspective of someone who hasn't follow
> the Foundation closely, this whole thread looks like a spat between
> Council members and the Foundation trustees which is bizarre to say
> the least.
Well, if you ask 5 people you probably get 5 different descriptions...
As far as I'm concerned, over the last months(?) the foundation trustees have
repeatedly tried to expand their area of responsibility into things that have
been handled by the council ever since I've been a developer. This is a bit
bizarre given the checkered history of foundation leadership and the still
unclear (though under repair) tax / finances status (their core competencies).
Consequently, relations between (some of the) trustees and (some of the)
council members have deteriorated to the point where I see the Gentoo
Foundation as *sole* asset holder of the Gentoo distribution as a danger to
the distribution. [*] [**]
The easiest way to fix this situation is to find an additional, second
financial sponsor *also* handling assets and donations for the Gentoo
distribution, which is why I proposed that the Gentoo council contacts SPI.
This does not take anything away from the Gentoo Foundation - the accounts are
to be completely separate, with no transfer of assets between SPI and the
Gentoo Foundation. I would sincerely welcome any further efforts from the side
of the Gentoo Foundation trustees to complete their bookkeeping, conclude
their open business with the IRS, and keep supporting the Gentoo distribution
financially.
[*] in #g-trustees: "<prometheanfire> [...] The trustees don't have to follow
or recognise glep 39"
[**] I've had this proposal in my mind already for some months, but hesitated
to post it. However, when Daniel Robbins started playing the trustees against
the council again, the situation deteriorated fast.
--
Andreas K. Hüttel
dilfridge@gentoo.org
Gentoo Linux developer
(council, toolchain, perl, libreoffice, comrel)
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 981 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] Meeting agenda - Council meeting 2018-04-08
2018-04-07 19:55 ` Andreas K. Huettel
@ 2018-04-07 20:01 ` M. J. Everitt
2018-04-07 20:01 ` Matthew Thode
1 sibling, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: M. J. Everitt @ 2018-04-07 20:01 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 456 bytes --]
On 07/04/18 20:55, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> [*] in #g-trustees: "<prometheanfire> [...] The trustees don't have to follow
> or recognise glep 39"
>
> [**] I've had this proposal in my mind already for some months, but hesitated
> to post it. However, when Daniel Robbins started playing the trustees against
> the council again, the situation deteriorated fast.
>
Quoting or mis-quoting people without context, is misleading *at best* ...
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] Meeting agenda - Council meeting 2018-04-08
2018-04-07 19:55 ` Andreas K. Huettel
2018-04-07 20:01 ` M. J. Everitt
@ 2018-04-07 20:01 ` Matthew Thode
2018-04-07 20:04 ` Andreas K. Huettel
1 sibling, 1 reply; 44+ messages in thread
From: Matthew Thode @ 2018-04-07 20:01 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3231 bytes --]
On 18-04-07 21:55:08, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Am Samstag, 7. April 2018, 21:33:57 CEST schrieb Matt Turner:
> > On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 6:46 PM, Matthias Maier <tamiko@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > 8. The council was requested to discuss and vote on the following motion
> > > [8]>
> > > "The Gentoo council shall directly contact "Software in the Public
> > > Interest
> > > Inc." (SPI), with the intention of Gentoo becoming a SPI Associated
> > > Project, independent of the Gentoo Foundation."
> >
> > The X.Org Foundation joined SPI recently, after failing to file its
> > taxes and losing its 501(c)(3) status. As far as I can tell everyone
> > has been pleased with the results, especially not having to deal with
> > the paperwork.
> >
> > But, what the fuck is going on? Perhaps if the Council is interested
> > in a topic they would spare a few keystrokes to explain the rationale
> > for such a change. From the perspective of someone who hasn't follow
> > the Foundation closely, this whole thread looks like a spat between
> > Council members and the Foundation trustees which is bizarre to say
> > the least.
>
> Well, if you ask 5 people you probably get 5 different descriptions...
>
> As far as I'm concerned, over the last months(?) the foundation trustees have
> repeatedly tried to expand their area of responsibility into things that have
> been handled by the council ever since I've been a developer. This is a bit
> bizarre given the checkered history of foundation leadership and the still
> unclear (though under repair) tax / finances status (their core competencies).
>
> Consequently, relations between (some of the) trustees and (some of the)
> council members have deteriorated to the point where I see the Gentoo
> Foundation as *sole* asset holder of the Gentoo distribution as a danger to
> the distribution. [*] [**]
>
> The easiest way to fix this situation is to find an additional, second
> financial sponsor *also* handling assets and donations for the Gentoo
> distribution, which is why I proposed that the Gentoo council contacts SPI.
>
> This does not take anything away from the Gentoo Foundation - the accounts are
> to be completely separate, with no transfer of assets between SPI and the
> Gentoo Foundation. I would sincerely welcome any further efforts from the side
> of the Gentoo Foundation trustees to complete their bookkeeping, conclude
> their open business with the IRS, and keep supporting the Gentoo distribution
> financially.
>
> [*] in #g-trustees: "<prometheanfire> [...] The trustees don't have to follow
> or recognise glep 39"
>
I think this quote is taken somewhat out of context (please don't do
that).
What I'm trying to say here is that, the trustees are not managed by the
metastructure. The trustees manage the project (specifically the
business areas).
> [**] I've had this proposal in my mind already for some months, but hesitated
> to post it. However, when Daniel Robbins started playing the trustees against
> the council again, the situation deteriorated fast.
>
attribution? Who said this?
--
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] Meeting agenda - Council meeting 2018-04-08
2018-04-07 20:01 ` Matthew Thode
@ 2018-04-07 20:04 ` Andreas K. Huettel
2018-04-07 20:08 ` Alec Warner
0 siblings, 1 reply; 44+ messages in thread
From: Andreas K. Huettel @ 2018-04-07 20:04 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project; +Cc: Matthew Thode
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 546 bytes --]
Am Samstag, 7. April 2018, 22:01:26 CEST schrieb Matthew Thode:
>
> > However, when Daniel Robbins started playing the
> > trustees against the council again, the situation deteriorated fast.
>
> attribution? Who said this?
That is my personal interpretation of events - he became a big supporter of
the trustees the moment when he realized that his efforts to become an
honorary council member went nowhere...
--
Andreas K. Hüttel
dilfridge@gentoo.org
Gentoo Linux developer
(council, toolchain, perl, libreoffice, comrel)
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 981 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] Meeting agenda - Council meeting 2018-04-08
2018-04-07 20:04 ` Andreas K. Huettel
@ 2018-04-07 20:08 ` Alec Warner
2018-04-07 20:16 ` Andreas K. Huettel
2018-04-07 21:13 ` Michał Górny
0 siblings, 2 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: Alec Warner @ 2018-04-07 20:08 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project; +Cc: Matthew Thode
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 929 bytes --]
On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 4:04 PM, Andreas K. Huettel <dilfridge@gentoo.org>
wrote:
> Am Samstag, 7. April 2018, 22:01:26 CEST schrieb Matthew Thode:
> >
> > > However, when Daniel Robbins started playing the
> > > trustees against the council again, the situation deteriorated fast.
> >
> > attribution? Who said this?
>
> That is my personal interpretation of events - he became a big supporter of
> the trustees the moment when he realized that his efforts to become an
> honorary council member went nowhere...
>
As a foundation member (1 person 1 vote) I don't really see drobbins making
much headway in this area.
Are you suggesting his 'trustees-based coup' is successful, or you just
have generic concerns about the two headed-ness of the existing system?
-A
>
> --
> Andreas K. Hüttel
> dilfridge@gentoo.org
> Gentoo Linux developer
> (council, toolchain, perl, libreoffice, comrel)
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1571 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] Meeting agenda - Council meeting 2018-04-08
2018-04-07 20:08 ` Alec Warner
@ 2018-04-07 20:16 ` Andreas K. Huettel
2018-04-07 21:13 ` Michał Górny
1 sibling, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: Andreas K. Huettel @ 2018-04-07 20:16 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1529 bytes --]
Am Samstag, 7. April 2018, 22:08:46 CEST schrieb Alec Warner:
> On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 4:04 PM, Andreas K. Huettel <dilfridge@gentoo.org>
>
> wrote:
> > Am Samstag, 7. April 2018, 22:01:26 CEST schrieb Matthew Thode:
> > > > However, when Daniel Robbins started playing the
> > > > trustees against the council again, the situation deteriorated fast.
> > >
> > > attribution? Who said this?
> >
> > That is my personal interpretation of events - he became a big supporter
> > of
> > the trustees the moment when he realized that his efforts to become an
> > honorary council member went nowhere...
>
> As a foundation member (1 person 1 vote) I don't really see drobbins making
> much headway in this area.
Nah, I think if anyone has earned foundation membership then it's him. That's
perfectly fine.
> Are you suggesting his 'trustees-based coup' is successful, or you just
> have generic concerns about the two headed-ness of the existing system?
I think all involved parties are too clever to have any 'trustees-based coup',
as you call it, actually succeed.
Still, I was kinda busy with other stuff last week. Then I checked the gentoo-
project list and it felt like looking at ... never mind, I clearly lack the
words to describe it. Horror from the fifth dimension. Gremlin playground. As
far as being divisive counts, there was a certain amount of success.
--
Andreas K. Hüttel
dilfridge@gentoo.org
Gentoo Linux developer
(council, toolchain, perl, libreoffice, comrel)
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 981 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] Meeting agenda - Council meeting 2018-04-08
2018-04-07 20:08 ` Alec Warner
2018-04-07 20:16 ` Andreas K. Huettel
@ 2018-04-07 21:13 ` Michał Górny
2018-04-07 21:23 ` M. J. Everitt
2018-04-07 21:55 ` Matthew Thode
1 sibling, 2 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: Michał Górny @ 2018-04-07 21:13 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project; +Cc: Matthew Thode
W dniu sob, 07.04.2018 o godzinie 16∶08 -0400, użytkownik Alec Warner
napisał:
> On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 4:04 PM, Andreas K. Huettel <dilfridge@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Am Samstag, 7. April 2018, 22:01:26 CEST schrieb Matthew Thode:
> > >
> > > > However, when Daniel Robbins started playing the
> > > > trustees against the council again, the situation deteriorated fast.
> > >
> > > attribution? Who said this?
> >
> > That is my personal interpretation of events - he became a big supporter of
> > the trustees the moment when he realized that his efforts to become an
> > honorary council member went nowhere...
> >
>
> As a foundation member (1 person 1 vote) I don't really see drobbins making
> much headway in this area.
> Are you suggesting his 'trustees-based coup' is successful, or you just
> have generic concerns about the two headed-ness of the existing system?
>
It's not like he was the first one, and I honestly doubt he's going to
be the last one. This will keep happening as long as ComRel/Council
(i.e. the metastructure part of Gentoo) can't rely on Trustee backing.
And I'm not talking about Trustees saying they agree with the decisions
or anything like that. All I'm asking for is solidarity. Official
statement such as 'we will respect Council decisions on X as long
as they are legally valid' would be enough. And cutting short all
the suggestions to the contrary.
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] Meeting agenda - Council meeting 2018-04-08
2018-04-07 21:13 ` Michał Górny
@ 2018-04-07 21:23 ` M. J. Everitt
2018-04-07 21:55 ` Matthew Thode
1 sibling, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: M. J. Everitt @ 2018-04-07 21:23 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
On 07/04/18 22:13, Michał Górny wrote:
> It's not like he was the first one, and I honestly doubt he's going to
> be the last one. This will keep happening as long as ComRel/Council
> (i.e. the metastructure part of Gentoo) can't rely on Trustee backing.
>
> And I'm not talking about Trustees saying they agree with the decisions
> or anything like that. All I'm asking for is solidarity. Official
> statement such as 'we will respect Council decisions on X as long
> as they are legally valid' would be enough. And cutting short all
> the suggestions to the contrary.
>
I would argue a simple statement from the Foundation stating that its a
matter that the Council deals with, and something they don't have to
comment on, is more than sufficient, imho. If there is a legal
implication, that is something the Council should be responsible for
bringing to the Foundation's attention... surely?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] Meeting agenda - Council meeting 2018-04-08
2018-04-07 21:13 ` Michał Górny
2018-04-07 21:23 ` M. J. Everitt
@ 2018-04-07 21:55 ` Matthew Thode
1 sibling, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: Matthew Thode @ 2018-04-07 21:55 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Michał Górny; +Cc: gentoo-project
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1687 bytes --]
On 18-04-07 23:13:24, Michał Górny wrote:
> W dniu sob, 07.04.2018 o godzinie 16∶08 -0400, użytkownik Alec Warner
> napisał:
> > On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 4:04 PM, Andreas K. Huettel <dilfridge@gentoo.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Am Samstag, 7. April 2018, 22:01:26 CEST schrieb Matthew Thode:
> > > >
> > > > > However, when Daniel Robbins started playing the
> > > > > trustees against the council again, the situation deteriorated fast.
> > > >
> > > > attribution? Who said this?
> > >
> > > That is my personal interpretation of events - he became a big supporter of
> > > the trustees the moment when he realized that his efforts to become an
> > > honorary council member went nowhere...
> > >
> >
> > As a foundation member (1 person 1 vote) I don't really see drobbins making
> > much headway in this area.
> > Are you suggesting his 'trustees-based coup' is successful, or you just
> > have generic concerns about the two headed-ness of the existing system?
> >
>
> It's not like he was the first one, and I honestly doubt he's going to
> be the last one. This will keep happening as long as ComRel/Council
> (i.e. the metastructure part of Gentoo) can't rely on Trustee backing.
>
> And I'm not talking about Trustees saying they agree with the decisions
> or anything like that. All I'm asking for is solidarity. Official
> statement such as 'we will respect Council decisions on X as long
> as they are legally valid' would be enough. And cutting short all
> the suggestions to the contrary.
>
In principal I don't have a problem with such a statement, I'll have to
think about it.
--
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] Meeting agenda - Council meeting 2018-04-08
2018-04-07 6:39 ` Michał Górny
2018-04-07 18:18 ` Matthew Thode
@ 2018-04-09 15:29 ` Michał Górny
2018-04-09 15:36 ` Rich Freeman
1 sibling, 1 reply; 44+ messages in thread
From: Michał Górny @ 2018-04-09 15:29 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project, Andreas K. Huettel
Cc: David Abbott, Rich Freeman, Gentoo Trustees
W dniu sob, 07.04.2018 o godzinie 08∶39 +0200, użytkownik Michał Górny
napisał:
> W dniu pią, 06.04.2018 o godzinie 17∶27 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
> napisał:
> > On 18-04-07 00:16:20, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> > > Am Freitag, 6. April 2018, 21:46:31 CEST schrieb David Abbott:
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If nothing else this might also be a way to reduce the workload on the
> > > > > Foundation so that they can focus more on getting the paperwork caught
> > > > > up vs actually having to pay for infra.
> > > >
> > > > So the funding is coming from the council? What will SPI use to pay infra
> > > > with?
> > >
> > > Funding is coming from the same sources as where it comes from now. Given that
> > > the new association starts from zero, it will in the beginning not have much
> > > money.
> > >
> > > Just see it as having a second bank account, or having a second payment
> > > provider in parallel.
> >
> > I'm not sure what it'd get us, we've had and have multple accounts
> > already.
> >
>
> Let me put it bluntly like this: all of our current resources are
> endangered by incompetence of Trustees since the forming
> of the Foundation. You can trivialize the problem this as much as
> you need to but this is the fact until we have a really good
> confirmation that the paperwork is clean.
>
I would like to apologize for this harmful generalization. Not all
Trustees in the history of Foundation were incompetent. In particular,
it is worth noting that Robin H. Johnson has put a significant effort
in improving the tax situation, and Daniel Campbell had his contribution
too.
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] Meeting agenda - Council meeting 2018-04-08
2018-04-09 15:29 ` Michał Górny
@ 2018-04-09 15:36 ` Rich Freeman
2018-04-09 15:52 ` Matthew Thode
0 siblings, 1 reply; 44+ messages in thread
From: Rich Freeman @ 2018-04-09 15:36 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Michał Górny
Cc: gentoo-project, Andreas K. Huettel, David Abbott, Gentoo Trustees
On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 11:29 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> I would like to apologize for this harmful generalization. Not all
> Trustees in the history of Foundation were incompetent. In particular,
> it is worth noting that Robin H. Johnson has put a significant effort
> in improving the tax situation, and Daniel Campbell had his contribution
> too.
>
Honestly, I think would be helpful if everybody tries to
de-personalize this discussion.
I think it makes the most sense to figure out what kind of
meta-structure we want, without regard to the titles individuals are
currently holding. We can always hold an election to re-sort people
(old or new) into the new roles (IMO this should be done if we make
any major changes, precisely because we DON'T want to design roles
with named individuals in mind).
I think the question should be what kind of design is sustainable.
I do think that the skills we have to work with should be fair game in
a discussion. We're mostly programmers/sysadmins/enthusiasts, and
lawyers are pretty rare in the community. I do think that our
metastructure would benefit from emphasizing the skills our community
actually has. We could also hire in skills we don't have, and I don't
have an issue with that, but again in that case we need to be mindful
of our current cash flow. It doesn't make sense to adopt the
metastructure appropriate for a company with a $50M annual budget when
we operate on a small fraction of this.
However, all of this can be done without smearing those serving in
various roles today. IMO most genuinely are trying to do what they
think is best for the distro, and I doubt most would have been elected
if a lot of people didn't share that sentiment.
--
Rich
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] Meeting agenda - Council meeting 2018-04-08
2018-04-09 15:36 ` Rich Freeman
@ 2018-04-09 15:52 ` Matthew Thode
0 siblings, 0 replies; 44+ messages in thread
From: Matthew Thode @ 2018-04-09 15:52 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2114 bytes --]
On 18-04-09 11:36:11, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 11:29 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > I would like to apologize for this harmful generalization. Not all
> > Trustees in the history of Foundation were incompetent. In particular,
> > it is worth noting that Robin H. Johnson has put a significant effort
> > in improving the tax situation, and Daniel Campbell had his contribution
> > too.
> >
>
> Honestly, I think would be helpful if everybody tries to
> de-personalize this discussion.
>
> I think it makes the most sense to figure out what kind of
> meta-structure we want, without regard to the titles individuals are
> currently holding. We can always hold an election to re-sort people
> (old or new) into the new roles (IMO this should be done if we make
> any major changes, precisely because we DON'T want to design roles
> with named individuals in mind).
>
It's with this in mind that I've made my current (and previous)
proposals.
> I think the question should be what kind of design is sustainable.
>
> I do think that the skills we have to work with should be fair game in
> a discussion. We're mostly programmers/sysadmins/enthusiasts, and
> lawyers are pretty rare in the community. I do think that our
> metastructure would benefit from emphasizing the skills our community
> actually has. We could also hire in skills we don't have, and I don't
> have an issue with that, but again in that case we need to be mindful
> of our current cash flow. It doesn't make sense to adopt the
> metastructure appropriate for a company with a $50M annual budget when
> we operate on a small fraction of this.
>
> However, all of this can be done without smearing those serving in
> various roles today. IMO most genuinely are trying to do what they
> think is best for the distro, and I doubt most would have been elected
> if a lot of people didn't share that sentiment.
>
My proposal does not preclude moving under an umbrella org (I think it
makes it easier actually).
--
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 44+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-04-09 15:52 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2018-04-03 1:46 [gentoo-project] Meeting agenda - Council meeting 2018-04-08 Matthias Maier
2018-04-03 5:32 ` Ulrich Mueller
2018-04-03 13:19 ` Matthias Maier
2018-04-06 2:15 ` William Hubbs
2018-04-06 2:39 ` Matthew Thode
2018-04-06 11:43 ` Rich Freeman
2018-04-06 15:29 ` Matthew Thode
2018-04-06 19:46 ` David Abbott
2018-04-06 20:44 ` Rich Freeman
2018-04-06 20:53 ` M. J. Everitt
2018-04-07 13:02 ` Alexis Ballier
2018-04-07 14:16 ` Rich Freeman
2018-04-07 14:43 ` M. J. Everitt
2018-04-07 15:10 ` Alexis Ballier
2018-04-07 16:44 ` R0b0t1
2018-04-07 18:37 ` Matthew Thode
2018-04-07 19:01 ` Andreas K. Huettel
2018-04-07 19:07 ` Matthew Thode
2018-04-07 19:15 ` Rich Freeman
2018-04-07 19:21 ` Matthew Thode
2018-04-07 14:54 ` Andreas K. Huettel
2018-04-07 15:16 ` Alexis Ballier
2018-04-07 15:42 ` Alexis Ballier
2018-04-07 18:39 ` Andreas K. Huettel
2018-04-06 22:16 ` Andreas K. Huettel
2018-04-06 22:27 ` Matthew Thode
2018-04-07 6:39 ` Michał Górny
2018-04-07 18:18 ` Matthew Thode
2018-04-07 18:32 ` Rich Freeman
2018-04-07 18:41 ` Matthew Thode
2018-04-09 15:29 ` Michał Górny
2018-04-09 15:36 ` Rich Freeman
2018-04-09 15:52 ` Matthew Thode
2018-04-07 19:33 ` Matt Turner
2018-04-07 19:43 ` Matthew Thode
2018-04-07 19:55 ` Andreas K. Huettel
2018-04-07 20:01 ` M. J. Everitt
2018-04-07 20:01 ` Matthew Thode
2018-04-07 20:04 ` Andreas K. Huettel
2018-04-07 20:08 ` Alec Warner
2018-04-07 20:16 ` Andreas K. Huettel
2018-04-07 21:13 ` Michał Górny
2018-04-07 21:23 ` M. J. Everitt
2018-04-07 21:55 ` Matthew Thode
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox