From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 163FB1382C5 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2018 03:29:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 20816E0B8B; Mon, 9 Apr 2018 03:29:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (dev.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C9200E0ABF for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2018 03:29:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from clocktown (anon-36-82.vpn.ipredator.se [46.246.36.82]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: zlg) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E36FE335C49 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2018 03:29:32 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2018 20:29:27 -0700 From: zlg To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 Message-ID: <20180409032927.GB29309@clocktown> References: <20180408202704.p3f6ktidjnbfb7co@gentoo.org> <87woxh77l4.fsf@gentoo.org> <20180409001118.GA29309@clocktown> <876051rxwc.fsf@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="1UWUbFP1cBYEclgG" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <876051rxwc.fsf@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) X-Archives-Salt: 34000604-6a4e-4bcf-9416-c0df01e67e43 X-Archives-Hash: bb27e756cd1dd32b40fffc975665d737 --1UWUbFP1cBYEclgG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Apr 08, 2018 at 08:06:43PM -0500, Matthias Maier wrote: > This is a request by two developers (and not by the council). But I > would like to answer one of your questions. >=20 >=20 > On Sun, Apr 8, 2018, at 19:11 CDT, zlg wrote: >=20 > > [...] > > > > To the Council: > > > > What makes you accountable to this community? Why should we trust or > > respect you when you have nothing on the line except a title? What > > happens next if these affirmations are made? What's your angle, your > > real motivation? >=20 > The Gentoo Developer community has used GLEP 39 [1] for its > self-organization for the last 12 years. Our "real motivation" (speaking > as individual developers) is to keep it that way. That doesn't answer the question. We all know what was written in the proposal. Why do you feel the Council should oversee so much despite assuming no liability or responsibility? What has the Council done to fix the problems in its own backyard, like recruitment, retention, engagement between developers, and opportunities to grow as developers? These are all existential issues that the Council routinely writes off as not their problem, but still want credit for leading the distribution. If the affirmation is not made, what will the Council's next move be? If the affirmation *is* made, what will happen? I feel as a developer I deserve to know what my _elected officials_ have in mind for the future and ask them questions, on a basis smaller than that of something like the manifestos that we use pre-election, which are one-way communication. The relationship between the elected and the electorate should not be a once-a-year deal where we hand over the reins and go along with everything they do. Representing people means listening to their concerns and factoring them into your decisions on a regular basis.= =20 This affirmation has value to the Council in some way; they would not ask for it if they didn't have plans for both outcomes. I am asking the Council what those plans are and why we should trust their proposal. It's difficult to make this decision in isolation given the past actions of the Council wrt the Foundation. I do not think it is unreasonable to question the motives of the group that professes to lead and represent me and other developers, thus my line of questioning. >=20 >=20 > > How do you trust a Council member when they have nothing to lose by > > acting against the community? >=20 > I fail to see how trying to get an affirmation that the Gentoo > Foundation is still on board with GLEP 39 is "acting against the > community". I wasn't referring to any specific action in my question. It's a side effect of current policy, nothing more. A bug. >=20 > We have had a very public case of prometheanfire pushing for dissolving > the current metastructure and reorganizing the community under the > Foundation. Andreas and I, personally, disagree with that. Why should a group -- who holds no legal, social, or practical responsibility -- be trusted to lead the efforts of an organization? The Council is not held to GLEPs or the CoC nearly as strongly as the Foundation is to its Bylaws (and by extension, the CoC), and a large part of that is the list of obligations outlined in the Articles of Incorporation. No such legal document exists to hold the Council accountable for anything. I am asking: in the absence of that, how can we trust you guys? Those who take on the most liability should have the most weight in decision-making. That attitude is common among Gentoo developers, too; the people who'd end up doing the work behind a decision (i.e. the ones responsible for carrying it out) have the most influence. Why should our leadership be any different when it comes to accountability? Sacrificing a few hours a month to chit-chat about some technical decisions doesn't really convince me that you're accountable to us or that you care about the effects of your decisions. A Trustee can be sued or legally removed from the project if found in violation of Bylaws. What consequences does a Council member face beyond removal from a mail alias and a few other minor things? That is the crux of my position. Your proposal seeks to maintain that the Council assumes all admin powers, while the Foundation maintains all liability and accountability, with an implicit expectation of supporting the Council. Why should the Foundation be held responsible for the Council's decisions? The Council doesn't respect the vulnerability of the Trustees or the practical power that the Foundation has. The current structure is not equitable. At present, five people at Gentoo put their names and reputations on the line for this distro while a group of seven people do whatever they please and offer nothing in return for the privilege. Why should Council members be held to a lower standard than a Trustee? I hope I am not alone in seeing this imbalance in liability versus influence. >=20 > Best, Matthias >=20 > [1] https://www.gentoo.org/glep/glep-0039.html --1UWUbFP1cBYEclgG Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEgIn+0tMDW9PQWDLnASQOlFA54XAFAlrK3hYACgkQASQOlFA5 4XApzhAAxy4K3rKzbFhihk/WwLqvRo20kB2oyvBF4m+hXmdOcaamRBYAVZ2LEsKO MY+sqW3nBz5W13eLLKKnpVrONCdtEwHihw6Dcby75rajQSaNCNzcWO7EsnJachAC KQMdZrcJIUYp3SlQyWLX74l63o6aw6buP8nrr/Auunyk97imHNuJL3Ay3tBjreE2 ZeLKIAA8qF4+h4fucLApQPDcKg4ikkXqTbzhfni5Gk2m1E2E63fUCCawDp4YfaxJ pDxfKLvrxcsOZgykhtJYTK4D2lS+R3WZ3YvZIfDUdJlloNFlRQc8HnozrIJOhPEE db7PNmXpX8HEtzJXLcCyIs7y8DqqWGOugBy9MvoVZovBMqHlI8M5PgUxa8LiGAhs 8KJYY4U8HJxGx3PAQ3pwe6oY+lZfNe/AMFjd2uYAtfI/zMlJHko31UDrxKcK08Q/ 3up2XA8O5i6l6QDhmr92RZ+rbUMOTBRuGNDp0pBafs6pGYss+zfERsoDXeU0irLO 8Y1uaBV/blxw0vhVissQzUvbvXp2q941qiuZgvWlZbItGWx9d4RsvlU40HKb/uib Y9nxkpwq6lIgaZAeG2mB5/0xYwfklRZc2SoxSDVvlRSv2/8W4nbiM5TjVHodP1xv TXHQrVbrYQoW5ocPzIue9rJKxjYIedMqMSVQDkBFW35NXfXA4uo= =KDG5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --1UWUbFP1cBYEclgG--