Re: [gentoo-project] Questions for Gentoo Council nominees: Gentoo Foundation

[Michael Everitt <m.j.everitt@iee.org>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1948 bytes --]

On 26/06/19 23:03, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 6/26/19 11:54 PM, Matthew Thode wrote:
>> On 19-06-26 21:45:48, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>>> On 6/25/19 1:23 AM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>>>> To the Council nominees, I put forward the following questions, around
>>>> the Gentoo Foundation:
>>>>
>>>> 1. What's your opinion of the past relationship between the Council &
>>>>    Foundation?
>>> The council has been critical of the way the foundation has been run,
>>> for good reasons.
>>>
>> Do you mind enumerating the reasons and the actions you wish to see
>> taken?
> The foundation has failed to run an operation in accordance with the
> laws and legislation of a foundation when it comes to, in particular,
> accounting matters of a number of years, which is a disgrace. The
> primary responsibility of the board of directors and its officers is to
> ensure that the foundation comply with applicable laws and file the
> necessary paperwork for its operation for things including tax matters.
>
Isn't it about time we quit pinning the mistakes of the past on the
officers of the present? From what I understand, the present and recent
officers have made extraordinary efforts to rectify the shortcomings of
previous trustees, and to bang on about the status quo and that of previous
foundation officers is hardly either constructive nor helpful to rectifying
the present situation.
>>>> 2. What should the future relationship between the Council & Foundation
>>>>    look like?
>>> As long as the foundation does it job and doesn't meddle in the running
>>> of the distro I'm fine, but the foundation is there to support the distro.
>>>
>>>> 3. What should the future of the Foundation itself look like?
>>> I'm fond of having an own foundation rather than an umbrella org, but it
>>> requires that it is properly run.
>>>
>> Do you mind being more specific here as well?
> see above.
>
>



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]