[gentoo-project] Council meeting Sunday 10/June/2018 18:00 UTC

[gentoo-project] Council meeting Sunday 10/June/2018 18:00 UTC

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 431 bytes --]

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. 

Given the late meeting announcement, no separate agenda e-mail will be sent 
out before the meeting.

Cheers, 
Andreas

-- 
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 --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Council meeting Sunday 10/June/2018 18:00 UTC

[Michał Górny]

W dniu pią, 08.06.2018 o godzinie 19∶44 +0200, użytkownik Andreas K.
Huettel napisał:
> 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. 
> 
> Given the late meeting announcement, no separate agenda e-mail will be sent 
> out before the meeting.
> 

...but the call for items was already sent [1]?

[1]:https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/537487c9956d286531a1f8f3b6adbe5b

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-project] Council meeting Sunday 10/June/2018 18:00 UTC

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2874 bytes --]

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.)


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.

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

-- 
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 --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Council meeting Sunday 10/June/2018 18:00 UTC

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 521 bytes --]

Am Freitag, 8. Juni 2018, 19:57:37 CEST schrieb Michał Górny:
> W dniu pią, 08.06.2018 o godzinie 19∶44 +0200, użytkownik Andreas K.
> 
> Huettel napisał:
> 
> ...but the call for items was already sent [1]?
> 
> [1]:https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/537487c9956d286531a1f
> 8f3b6adbe5b

Ooops, sorry, missed that completely. Anyway, posted another agenda item :P

-- 
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 --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Council meeting Sunday 10/June/2018 18:00 UTC

[Aaron Bauman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4409 bytes --]

On Friday, June 8, 2018 2:02:42 PM EDT 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.)
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> c) Officers and trustees of the Gentoo Foundation are not eligible for
> project liaison.

Given that this could potentially be viewed an a step forward in negating the 
purpose of the Gentoo Foundation I find it wise the consider the following:

No sitting council members may be appointed to the project liaison
role.  If this individual is under the strict instruction of the council this 
there is no purpose for a dual-hatted individual.  As such, the project 
laision should be capable of disagreement with the council and not fear 
retribution by being unseated.  This position should be highly coveted as it 
will *directly* impact the current and future health of *our* project.

Additionally, the project liaison should be given some avenue of reprisal.  
First thought would be to introduce an all hands developer vote be called to 
unseat that project liaison.

e.g. council appointed, but developer community removed.

Again, this proposal *could* potentially be a step forward in negating the 
Foundation's purpose.  As such, it is important that the dev community be 
aware of what is happening and why.  Disagreements between the council and 
their appointed liaison should not be simply squashed by introducing a new 
liaison who will blindly do things the way the council wants.

While I do not disagree with the SPI proposal I find it best that all proper 
checks and balances be in place.  If SPI can offer stability for our 
intellectual property, donations, finances, etc then it would be the correct 
move.

Ultimately, we *ought* to ensure that it is done the proper way.  Please put 
the proper checks and balances in place.

> 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,
> * 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.
> ==


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Council meeting Sunday 10/June/2018 18:00 UTC

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2815 bytes --]

Am Sonntag, 10. Juni 2018, 17:24:28 CEST schrieb Aaron Bauman:

> No sitting council members may be appointed to the project liaison
> role.  If this individual is under the strict instruction of the council
> this there is no purpose for a dual-hatted individual.  As such, the
> project laision should be capable of disagreement with the council and not
> fear retribution by being unseated.  This position should be highly coveted
> as it will *directly* impact the current and future health of *our*
> project.

Well... The initial intention was the precise opposite - for reason of 
avoiding unnecessary bureaucracy and intermediate steps, my first draft even 
contained "a council member" instead of "a Gentoo developer". You need to take 
into account that whoever does the job will have to become closely involved 
and *present*.

Then again, if there's a suitable candidate, why not, so I loosened the 
restriction to "a Gentoo developer". The only real limitation *for now* would 
be "no Foundation personnel", to avoid legal complications.

> Additionally, the project liaison should be given some avenue of reprisal.
> First thought would be to introduce an all hands developer vote be called to
> unseat that project liaison.
> e.g. council appointed, but developer community removed.

That could be doable, but we need to make sure that this is not an "easy 
process". I.e., if someone goes completely astray, it needs to be possible 
when there is wide support, but only then... Say, 2/3 of yes votes and a 
quorum of 1/2 of all devs...

> Disagreements between the council and
> their appointed liaison should not be simply squashed by introducing a new
> liaison who will blindly do things the way the council wants.

This does not make sense. The liaison is bound to the instructions of the 
counil, so in case of disagreement the council needs to be able to pick a new 
one.

> Ultimately, we *ought* to ensure that it is done the proper way.  Please put
> the proper checks and balances in place.

I'm more worried that at the moment we're all checks and balances (or more 
precisely, unclear areas of responsibility and unclear procedures), so that in 
the end nothing gets done. 

The council members do get elected... Maybe this would even be an argument 
*for* requiring a council member as liaison.

In any case, this is a discussion of details that we still have quite some 
time for. The motion is primarily whether we should approach SPI with the 
intention of becoming an associated project. Then comes the question whether 
they will accept us. And only after that the precise procedures need to be 
agreed upon.

-- 
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 --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Council meeting Sunday 10/June/2018 18:00 UTC

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 797 bytes --]

Am Sonntag, 10. Juni 2018, 18:34:37 CEST schrieb Andreas K. Huettel:

> > Additionally, the project liaison should be given some avenue of reprisal.
> > First thought would be to introduce an all hands developer vote be called
> > to unseat that project liaison.
> > e.g. council appointed, but developer community removed.
> 
> That could be doable, but we need to make sure that this is not an "easy
> process". [...]

Just to expand on this a bit, if any such rule is introduced, it should work 
the same way as the main rule - the liaison can only be unseated by 
constructive vote, i.e., voting for a replacement. This makes sure the office 
is never vacant.

-- 
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 --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Council meeting Sunday 10/June/2018 18:00 UTC

[Aaron Bauman]

On June 10, 2018 12:34:37 PM EDT, "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@gentoo.org> wrote:
>Am Sonntag, 10. Juni 2018, 17:24:28 CEST schrieb Aaron Bauman:
>
>> No sitting council members may be appointed to the project liaison
>> role.  If this individual is under the strict instruction of the
>council
>> this there is no purpose for a dual-hatted individual.  As such, the
>> project laision should be capable of disagreement with the council
>and not
>> fear retribution by being unseated.  This position should be highly
>coveted
>> as it will *directly* impact the current and future health of *our*
>> project.
>
>Well... The initial intention was the precise opposite - for reason of 
>avoiding unnecessary bureaucracy and intermediate steps, my first draft
>even 
>contained "a council member" instead of "a Gentoo developer". You need
>to take 
>into account that whoever does the job will have to become closely
>involved 
>and *present*.
>
>Then again, if there's a suitable candidate, why not, so I loosened the
>
>restriction to "a Gentoo developer". The only real limitation *for now*
>would 
>be "no Foundation personnel", to avoid legal complications.
>

I agree, they would need to be present.  So, hopefully you can find someone.  I intend to run for council otherwise I would throw my name out there for consideration.  In principle (regardless if others agree or not) I would not ask to be considered for a dual-hatted position.  It is important to me that we resolve our outstanding financial issues etc and ensure Gentoo is healthy.

>> Additionally, the project liaison should be given some avenue of
>reprisal.
>> First thought would be to introduce an all hands developer vote be
>called to
>> unseat that project liaison.
>> e.g. council appointed, but developer community removed.
>
>That could be doable, but we need to make sure that this is not an
>"easy 
>process". I.e., if someone goes completely astray, it needs to be
>possible 
>when there is wide support, but only then... Say, 2/3 of yes votes and
>a 
>quorum of 1/2 of all devs...
>

Agreed.  That is exactly what I was implying.

>> Disagreements between the council and
>> their appointed liaison should not be simply squashed by introducing
>a new
>> liaison who will blindly do things the way the council wants.
>
>This does not make sense. The liaison is bound to the instructions of
>the 
>counil, so in case of disagreement the council needs to be able to pick
>a new 
>one.
>

I completely disagree with this hence my previous wording.  Sure, they should follow the instructions of the council, but should there be any reprehensible things asked of said liaison then they should be able to rectify that without fear of retribution.  This covers moral conflicts, matters of principle, and consolidation of power.

Once again, this is about the health of Gentoo.  If SPI can solve that then wonderful.

>> Ultimately, we *ought* to ensure that it is done the proper way. 
>Please put
>> the proper checks and balances in place.
>
>I'm more worried that at the moment we're all checks and balances (or
>more 
>precisely, unclear areas of responsibility and unclear procedures), so
>that in 
>the end nothing gets done. 
>
>The council members do get elected... Maybe this would even be an
>argument 
>*for* requiring a council member as liaison.
>
>In any case, this is a discussion of details that we still have quite
>some 
>time for. The motion is primarily whether we should approach SPI with
>the 
>intention of becoming an associated project. Then comes the question
>whether 
>they will accept us. And only after that the precise procedures need to
>be 
>agreed upon.

Yes, this is a concern of mine as well.  I find that an alternative third party like SPI will solve this. 

The pool of people who comprise the council and Foundation are the issue IMHO.  Allowing developers to fill both roles has caused this dysfunction/struggle of power we currently see.

The council should remain developers and the trademarks, IP, etc should be done by someone like SPI who has a simple interest in perserving the health of Gentoo.  I am not implying that developers do not care, but that we have given an avenue for individuality/personality to cause filibusters.

Also, in that sense, we ought to consider that SPI related matters be *advised* by council and voted on by the dev community at large.
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Re: [gentoo-project] Council meeting Sunday 10/June/2018 18:00 UTC

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 12:34 PM Andreas K. Huettel
<dilfridge@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> I'm more worried that at the moment we're all checks and balances (or more
> precisely, unclear areas of responsibility and unclear procedures), so that in
> the end nothing gets done.
>

++

This whole situation is in part the result of having two
decision-making bodies with different constituencies, and perhaps even
slightly different missions.  Adding yet another decision-making body
(literally a single body in this case) with yet another constituency
and also somewhat independent is going to make the problem worse, not
better.

Checks and balances makes sense for governments, because a government
can literally raid your house, seize your property, or lock you in
prison.  They also have endless funding available to pay as many
levels of bureaucracy you might want to employ, and an entire army of
people and businesses looking to profit from the checks and balances
which help "make it work."

You almost never see this kind of arrangement in any kind of private
organization, whether for-profit or non-profit.  You just have one
ultimate decision-making body, and anything else serves at their
convenience.  It works because of competition - if your
employer/vendor/whatever does something you don't like, you can just
freely choose to leave and work for another.  IMO this is part of why
Gentoo is struggling here - other distros are less niche and can
afford to fork when they disagree over issues.

IMO one of the bigger challenges will be working with the umbrella
group to make it clear who gets to appoint the liaison and so on.
They probably could make suggestions in this area.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Council meeting Sunday 10/June/2018 18:00 UTC

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 444 bytes --]

Am Sonntag, 10. Juni 2018, 19:19:32 CEST schrieb Rich Freeman:
> 
> IMO one of the bigger challenges will be working with the umbrella
> group to make it clear who gets to appoint the liaison and so on.
> They probably could make suggestions in this area.

Yeah, we need to keep the rules there as simple as possible.

-- 
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 --]

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

[Matthew Thode]

[-- 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 --]