[gentoo-project] Re: SPI as an alternate foundation

[Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4562 bytes --]

The foundation was not consulted on this.  As this concerns the
foundation and it's stewardship of the Gentoo Distribution I find that
concerning.  I've also re-subject'd the thread to call it out as a
topic.

On 18-06-08 20:02:42, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Am Freitag, 8. Juni 2018, 19:44:00 CEST schrieb Andreas K. Huettel:
> > Dear all,
> > 
> > the Gentoo Council will meet again this sunday, 10 June 2018, 18:00 UTC on
> > the #gentoo-council IRC channel.
> > 
> > Please reply to this e-mail with agenda item proposals.
> > 
> 
> I would like to put the following proposal on the agenda once more (clarified 
> and expanded):
> 
> The Gentoo council shall directly contact "Software in the Public Interest 
> Inc." (SPI), with the intention of Gentoo becoming a SPI Associated Project.
> The intention is for SPI to become an *additional* service provider of the 
> Gentoo developer community for Accepting Donations, Holding Funds, and Holding 
> Assets. The SPI project liaison shall be appointed by the Gentoo council.
> 
> No transfer of funds or assets of any kind between SPI and the Gentoo 
> Foundation is stipulated (it would be the trustees' responsibility anyway), so 
> any (dys)function of the Gentoo Foundation has no impact on this new business 
> relationship. Equally, the business relationship with SPI shall have no impact 
> on the current function of the Gentoo Foundation. Essentially, the proposal is 
> that we start with an empty account at SPI. (I'll be happy to make the first 
> donation.)
> 

Please stop stating that the Foundation is dysfunctional.  You are not
helping (either in real terms in working with the foundation or in
promoting a divide between the two groups).  I'd think that the lead of
comrel wouldn't want to spread the hate.

I'm not sure how you can say there'd be no transfer of anything when you
are trying to represent the Gentoo Distribution in a business decision.
We would be required to take action against any use of the Gentoo Name
that does not follow the 'Gentoo name and logo usage guidelines'.

> 
> SPI does not require exclusivity; the company explicitly allows that a project 
> is also sponsored by further parties. As long as SPI does not publicly 
> represent Gentoo, there is no conflict regarding trademarks. Most SPI 
> associated projects are unincorporated associations of individuals, as is the 
> Gentoo developer community electing the Gentoo Council.
> 

This is good, though I wonder who the donations are going to (the name
is important).

> As additional bonus, we will be gaining that donations to SPI are tax-
> deductible both in the US and in the EU.
> 
> The precise procedure for appointing the project liaison is up to debate; a 
> draft proposal can be found below.
> ==
> a) The project liaison is a Gentoo developer appointed by the Gentoo council,
> and bound to follow its instructions. 
> b) Appointment of the project liaison is by vote of the majority of council
> members (i.e. >=4 votes). The only way to unseat the project liaison is to 
> appoint a different project liaison by vote.

I'd much rather this be a full vote by the developers, or to have
something like a super-majority be needed to appoint someone to this
important position.

> c) Officers and trustees of the Gentoo Foundation are not eligible for
> project liaison. 

Please give details as to why this is NEEDED.  This would further drain
the manpower of the foundation by removing those capable of helping it.

> d) The restriction of c) can be lifted permanently by Gentoo council majority
> decision only after the council, the Gentoo Foundation trustees, and the board
> of the financial sponsor organization have come into agreement that
> * the financial situation of the Gentoo Foundation has been sufficiently
>   clarified, 

I do not know why you require 100% of those 'voting' here to vote the
same way is setting it up for failure.  It also allows for any of the
three parties to act against the best interests of the whole by voting
no (they all have veto power).  Two out of three voting yes would work
better.

> * any outstanding taxes have been determined and paid, and 
> * any further outstanding relevant business of the Gentoo Foundation, i.e., 
>   with the IRS, has been concluded.

What is the reasoning behind both of these requirements (I agree that
they need to be done, but I wonder what they have to do with anything
here).

-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]