[gentoo-project] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018

[gentoo-project] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1281 bytes --]

The canonical version of this agenda is located at:
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Meetings/2018/04

The time / date / location of the meeting are as follows
Saturday, April 21 2018 22:00 UTC on irc.freenode.net #gentoo-trustees

Alicef:
  - Add Foundation:Consultants reference to https://www.gentoo.org/support
    - This seems to be done already, just need an ack for removal
  - (non-corporate) donors / "friends" page
  - licencing update (with ulm)

klondike: request for accounting / bookkeeping (status update, with K_F)

prometheanfire: openssl ecc update (stabilize 1.1)

Infra update: jmbsvicetto
Treasurer update: robbat2

Open Bugs: https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=IN_PROGRESS&bug_status=VERIFIED&email2=trustees&emailassigned_to2=1&emailcc2=1&emailreporter2=1&emailtype2=substring&known_name=TrusteesOpenBugs&list_id=3290194&order=Last%20Changed&query_based_on=TrusteesOpenBugs&query_format=advanced&resolution=---

Cleanup:  Next meeting: Saturday, May 19 2018 22:00 UTC

Open Floor

=======
If you have any additions you wish to make, please submit it to the
gentoo-nfp list at least 48 hours before the meeting is to take place.

-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)

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

Re: [gentoo-project] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018

[Matthias Maier]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1003 bytes --]

On Sun, Apr  8, 2018, at 15:27 CDT, Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@gentoo.org> wrote:

> =======
> If you have any additions you wish to make, please submit it to the
> gentoo-nfp list at least 48 hours before the meeting is to take place.


We request the Board of Trustees to make the following motion part of
their next meeting agenda, we will ask for a formal vote by council at
the next council meeting:


  We request that the Gentoo Council and the Board of Trustees of the Gentoo
  Foundation affirm Gentoo's metastructure GLEP 39 as the governing principle
  of the Gentoo Linux developer community. In particular, both acknowledge
  the split between
    - the Gentoo Council, which is responsible for the Gentoo Linux developer
      community, its user base and all technical decisions,
    - and the Gentoo Foundation, whose role is to hold Gentoo's assets
      (such as trademarks and server infrastructure) and support the developer
      and user community.


Best,
Matthias and Andreas

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 850 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 997 bytes --]

> 
> We request the Board of Trustees to make the following motion part of
> their next meeting agenda, we will ask for a formal vote by council at
> the next council meeting:
> 
> 
>   We request that the Gentoo Council and the Board of Trustees of the Gentoo
> Foundation affirm Gentoo's metastructure GLEP 39 as the governing principle
> of the Gentoo Linux developer community. In particular, both acknowledge
> the split between
>     - the Gentoo Council, which is responsible for the Gentoo Linux
> developer community, its user base and all technical decisions,
>     - and the Gentoo Foundation, whose role is to hold Gentoo's assets
>       (such as trademarks and server infrastructure) and support the
> developer and user community.
> 

Reaffirming this, as a foundation member I request that the Board of Trustees 
passes this precise motion.


-- 
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] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018

[zlg]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2398 bytes --]

On Sun, Apr 08, 2018 at 03:43:03PM -0500, Matthias Maier wrote:
> On Sun, Apr  8, 2018, at 15:27 CDT, Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > =======
> > If you have any additions you wish to make, please submit it to the
> > gentoo-nfp list at least 48 hours before the meeting is to take place.
> 
> 
> We request the Board of Trustees to make the following motion part of
> their next meeting agenda, we will ask for a formal vote by council at
> the next council meeting:
> 
> 
>   We request that the Gentoo Council and the Board of Trustees of the Gentoo
>   Foundation affirm Gentoo's metastructure GLEP 39 as the governing principle
>   of the Gentoo Linux developer community. In particular, both acknowledge
>   the split between
>     - the Gentoo Council, which is responsible for the Gentoo Linux developer
>       community, its user base and all technical decisions,
>     - and the Gentoo Foundation, whose role is to hold Gentoo's assets
>       (such as trademarks and server infrastructure) and support the developer
>       and user community.
> 
> 
> Best,
> Matthias and Andreas

In the interest of upholding a promise, I'll keep it short.

The Council is not offering anything equitable in return for a
Foundation motion. There is no guarantee they will even hear, let alone
pass the same motion. If said motion passes in both bodies, what comes
next? The affirmations are pointless without some sort of follow-up
action, which is conveniently omitted.

If it's important enough for both groups to agree on it, it should be
done simultaneously with all relevant members present (every Trustee and
Council member). The proposal in its current form (summed up as "you
first") can be reneged or ignored altogether by the Council.

I request the Trustees reconsider this one-sided deal and ask what the
Council is offering in return.

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?

How do you trust a Council member when they have nothing to lose by
acting against the community?

To everyone else:

The next Council election is in June. Please vote responsibly.

Sincerely,

A Foundation Member and developer

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

Re: [gentoo-project] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 8:11 PM, zlg <zlg@gentoo.org> wrote:
> To the Council:
>
> What makes you accountable to this community?
>
> To everyone else:
>
> The next Council election is in June. Please vote responsibly.

Asked and answered?

Considering the same appeal was made about a year ago I await the
results of this year's election with bated breath...

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018

[Matthias Maier]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1131 bytes --]

This is a request by two developers (and not by the council). But I
would like to answer one of your questions.


On Sun, Apr  8, 2018, at 19:11 CDT, zlg <zlg@gentoo.org> wrote:

> [...]
>
> 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?

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.


> How do you trust a Council member when they have nothing to lose by
> acting against the community?

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".

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.

Best,
Matthias

[1] https://www.gentoo.org/glep/glep-0039.html

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 850 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018

[Alec Warner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1586 bytes --]

On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 9:06 PM, Matthias Maier <tamiko@gentoo.org> wrote:

> This is a request by two developers (and not by the council). But I
> would like to answer one of your questions.
>
>
> On Sun, Apr  8, 2018, at 19:11 CDT, zlg <zlg@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> > [...]
> >
> > 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?
>
> 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.
>
>
> > How do you trust a Council member when they have nothing to lose by
> > acting against the community?
>
> 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".
>
> 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.
>

I'm curious what the difference between 'discussing an idea' and 'pushing
for an idea' is.
I want a community where we can discuss ideas (even ideas the council or
you dislike) without it causing a major incident or people getting upset
about it.
What would you have people who have these ideas do differently?

-A


> Best,
> Matthias
>
> [1] https://www.gentoo.org/glep/glep-0039.html
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2453 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2214 bytes --]

On Sun, Apr 08, 2018 at 09:38:47PM -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 9:06 PM, Matthias Maier <tamiko@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > This is a request by two developers (and not by the council). But I
> > would like to answer one of your questions.
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Apr  8, 2018, at 19:11 CDT, zlg <zlg@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > 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?
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > > How do you trust a Council member when they have nothing to lose by
> > > acting against the community?
> >
> > 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".
> >
> > 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.
> >
> 
> I'm curious what the difference between 'discussing an idea' and 'pushing
> for an idea' is.
> I want a community where we can discuss ideas (even ideas the council or
> you dislike) without it causing a major incident or people getting upset
> about it.
> What would you have people who have these ideas do differently?

(council hat on)

Alec,

Yes, I see this the same way. I, for one, was open to
discussing prometheanfire's idea. The way you do that is you state why
you don't like the idea and go from there to either try to refine it or
drop it.

My opinion is that my fellow council members see his proposal as a power
grab. I don't understand why though, because all it was was a proposal.
There was no attempt to act on it, and it couldn't have been enacted
without a full developer vote in the first place.

William


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018

[Luca Barbato]

On 09/04/2018 10:38, Alec Warner wrote:
> I'm curious what the difference between 'discussing an idea' and 'pushing
> for an idea' is.

The number of times it gets rehashed after it got strongly rejected.

lu

Re: [gentoo-project] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018

[zlg]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5130 bytes --]

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.
> 
> 
> On Sun, Apr  8, 2018, at 19:11 CDT, zlg <zlg@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > [...]
> >
> > 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?
> 
> 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. 

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.

> 
> 
> > How do you trust a Council member when they have nothing to lose by
> > acting against the community?
> 
> 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.

> 
> 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.
> 
> Best, Matthias
> 
> [1] https://www.gentoo.org/glep/glep-0039.html



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

Re: [gentoo-project] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018

[Virgil Dupras]

On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 20:29:27 -0700
zlg <zlg@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Why should a group -- who holds no legal, social, or practical
> responsibility -- be trusted to lead the efforts of an organization?

Since Gentoo's CoC is strongly based on Debian, maybe we could look at Debian's constitution for clues on this and ask ourselves why it says in section 9 [1]:

> An organisation holding assets for Debian has no authority regarding
> Debian's technical or nontechnical decisions, except that no decision
> by Debian with respect to any property held by the organisation shall
> require it to act outside its legal authority.

Maybe that this type of separation of concerns worked well for them? Maybe it can work well for Gentoo?

Regards,
Virgil Dupras

[1] https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution#item-9

Re: [gentoo-project] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018

[zlg]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1392 bytes --]

On Sun, Apr 08, 2018 at 11:42:01PM -0400, Virgil Dupras wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 20:29:27 -0700
> zlg <zlg@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > Why should a group -- who holds no legal, social, or practical
> > responsibility -- be trusted to lead the efforts of an organization?
> 
> Since Gentoo's CoC is strongly based on Debian, maybe we could look at Debian's constitution for clues on this and ask ourselves why it says in section 9 [1]:
> 
> > An organisation holding assets for Debian has no authority regarding
> > Debian's technical or nontechnical decisions, except that no decision
> > by Debian with respect to any property held by the organisation shall
> > require it to act outside its legal authority.
> 
> Maybe that this type of separation of concerns worked well for them? Maybe it can work well for Gentoo?
> 
> Regards,
> Virgil Dupras
> 
> [1] https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution#item-9
> 

Separating concerns may work, but not without a real, legally binding
contract that both parties consent to and abide by. Otherwise, the
Foundation takes on all the legal and financial risk and gets nothing
for it.

An affirmation from the two parties is not a binding contract. I would
support one if it was equitable and enforceable, i.e. not GLEP 39. If
the relationship is reduced to business, then the Council should offer
something in return.

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

Re: [gentoo-project] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018

[Michał Górny]

Dnia 9 kwietnia 2018 06:39:22 CEST, zlg <zlg@gentoo.org> napisał(a):
>On Sun, Apr 08, 2018 at 11:42:01PM -0400, Virgil Dupras wrote:
>> On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 20:29:27 -0700
>> zlg <zlg@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> 
>> > Why should a group -- who holds no legal, social, or practical
>> > responsibility -- be trusted to lead the efforts of an
>organization?
>> 
>> Since Gentoo's CoC is strongly based on Debian, maybe we could look
>at Debian's constitution for clues on this and ask ourselves why it
>says in section 9 [1]:
>> 
>> > An organisation holding assets for Debian has no authority
>regarding
>> > Debian's technical or nontechnical decisions, except that no
>decision
>> > by Debian with respect to any property held by the organisation
>shall
>> > require it to act outside its legal authority.
>> 
>> Maybe that this type of separation of concerns worked well for them?
>Maybe it can work well for Gentoo?
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Virgil Dupras
>> 
>> [1] https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution#item-9
>> 
>
>Separating concerns may work, but not without a real, legally binding
>contract that both parties consent to and abide by. Otherwise, the
>Foundation takes on all the legal and financial risk and gets nothing
>for it.

And that is what it's called not-for-profit. They volunteer to help others and want nothing in return.

>
>An affirmation from the two parties is not a binding contract. I would
>support one if it was equitable and enforceable, i.e. not GLEP 39. If
>the relationship is reduced to business, then the Council should offer
>something in return.


-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny (by phone)

Re: [gentoo-project] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018

[Paweł Hajdan, Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 686 bytes --]

On 09/04/2018 07:47, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 9 kwietnia 2018 06:39:22 CEST, zlg <zlg@gentoo.org> napisał(a):
>> Separating concerns may work, but not without a real, legally binding
>> contract that both parties consent to and abide by. Otherwise, the
>> Foundation takes on all the legal and financial risk and gets nothing
>> for it.
> 
> And that is what it's called not-for-profit. They volunteer to help others and want nothing in return.

+1

At the point a "legally binding" contract would make a difference, the
project would be in serious trouble. Consider
<https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/11/20/foss_sflc_sfc_gpl_trademark/>
as an example.

Paweł


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 766 bytes --]

On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 08:28:48AM +0200, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote:
> On 09/04/2018 07:47, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Dnia 9 kwietnia 2018 06:39:22 CEST, zlg <zlg@gentoo.org> napisał(a):
> >> Separating concerns may work, but not without a real, legally binding
> >> contract that both parties consent to and abide by. Otherwise, the
> >> Foundation takes on all the legal and financial risk and gets nothing
> >> for it.
> > 
> > And that is what it's called not-for-profit. They volunteer to help others and want nothing in return.
> 
> +1

In response to the statement that not-for-profits are supposed to get
"nothing in return", consider this.

https://business-law.freeadvice.com/business-law/corporations/non_profit_corporation.htm

William

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018

[Matthias Maier]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 674 bytes --]


On Sun, Apr  8, 2018, at 22:29 CDT, zlg <zlg@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Why do you feel the Council should oversee so much despite assuming no
> liability or responsibility?

We are merely talking about the current status quo here.

Ultimately it is a question about how we - as in Gentoo Developer
community, or as the open source project as we are [1] - want to
organize and govern ourselves. The current form, GLEP 39, establishes a
Gentoo Council and Projects - if we were to decide another form of
self-organization is more appropriate so be it. But this is orthogonal
to the current question.

Best,
Matthias

[1] This is as an unincorporated associations of individuals.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 850 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018

[zlg]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1041 bytes --]

On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 02:17:17AM -0500, Matthias Maier wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Apr  8, 2018, at 22:29 CDT, zlg <zlg@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > Why do you feel the Council should oversee so much despite assuming no
> > liability or responsibility?
> 
> We are merely talking about the current status quo here.
> 
> Ultimately it is a question about how we - as in Gentoo Developer
> community, or as the open source project as we are [1] - want to
> organize and govern ourselves. The current form, GLEP 39, establishes a
> Gentoo Council and Projects - if we were to decide another form of
> self-organization is more appropriate so be it. But this is orthogonal
> to the current question.
> 
> Best,
> Matthias
> 
> [1] This is as an unincorporated associations of individuals.

I'm not interested in playing mental games. I asked simple, direct
questions and cannot get answers. I can only conclude that you don't
think my questions are worth answering, despite being a member of the
community you represent.

Bye.

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

Re: [gentoo-project] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 11:29 PM, zlg <zlg@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> 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?
>

The legal liability of Trustees should be viewed as a bug, not a
feature.  The proposals you and Matthew present would extend that bug
more widely, while others have been proposing to reduce it.

We're a volunteer-driven community distro, not a large company.  We
don't have an army of lawyers and accountants that are paid to deal
with ensuring that everything is legally solid.

I suspect most of us work in companies that do have all these
processes, and I doubt most of us want us see that fully replicated
here.  Sure, we generally try to behave professionally, but our goal
here is to maximize the time spent working on the stuff that interests
us, and minimize the time spent on overhead.

If we make more positions in Gentoo legally responsible for their
actions (as volunteers) I think it will just make it that much harder
to recruit competent people into those roles.  For an illustration of
how this already works, look at any Council/Trustee election.
Typically in a Council election we have twice as many candidates as
open positions, despite the fact that we always have 7 open positions.
In a Trustee election we only have 2-3 positions open typically, and
in several years we haven't even had an election as the seats weren't
even contested.  Going back further we had seats going vacant -
anybody who even ran would have gotten in unopposed.

And that was generally the case before we found out the extent of the
legal issues facing the Foundation.

The legal liability for Foundation duties also makes it harder to hire
professional help.  Anybody we might hire to help fix our mess is
going to have to due the job properly because they would be liable
otherwise, and they're going to want to see that the Foundation is a
serious partner to work with.  Their fees will reflect both their
expertise and need to cover insurance/etc (something we haven't been
able to afford for our officers/trustees).

If I could wave a wand and make the Trustees non-liable for the
volunteer work they do I would, but obviously I can't and this is just
the reality of the structure we've chosen for ourselves.

Other distros like Debian and Arch are taking a different approach in
trying to minimize the scope of the legal side by concentrating it
into a more professionally managed cross-org non-profit that has even
less responsibility for the actual distro.  The logic here is to
minimize the scope of the stuff that can get people into trouble.

A lot of smaller projects take it a step further and simply try to
avoid having any money/infra/assets to manage, by using
freely-available hosting.  This might be less practical at our scale -
if one of these services shuts down we'd have to pick up and move a
lot of stuff.

I strongly advocate minimizing the legal side of Gentoo.  It exposes
us to risk, and in general it isn't the sort of thing most of our
volunteers seem interested in dealing with.  For me it has nothing to
do with the competence or intentions of those currently volunteering
in these roles.  I just think that our current metastructure is a
relic of the time it was created in and that better solutions to our
problems exist today.  If certain aspects of the project can be
managed without having to deal with legal liability, then it adds no
value to mix that in.

Finally, I just want to deal with the notion that we need parts of the
distro to be liable in order for there to be accountability,
presumably to our users or volunteers.  None of us are paid to be
here.  If people don't like the job leaders are doing, they should
elect different leaders.  There was a recent proposal to allow for
recalls or the like and I'm completely for that.  However, it makes no
sense at all to expose our volunteers to legal liability as some sort
of accountability system.  There will ALWAYS be people who disagree
with decisions.  If there are 100 who agree and 10 who disagree, the
last thing we need is the 10 going to court and filing lawsuits that
cost thousands of dollars to defend.  That is basically the tail
wagging the dog.

Not even paid distros accept this kind of liability.  If you're a user
of RHEL and don't like what Redhat is doing, good luck getting
anything from them in compensation beyond a refund.  They're obviously
motivated to keep their customers happy, but every company seeks to
minimize its legal liability because the needs of one customer can't
be allowed to dictate the path of an entire corporation and its impact
on every other customer.

Is recruitment not going well enough?  Well, propose a solution, and
go from there.  If Council members didn't have a solution proposed in
their manifestos going into elections, I'm not sure why you're shocked
that they don't have one six months later.  It isn't like they were
paid to sit around all day brainstorming one.  In any case, if you
think that somebody else will make things better, then by all means
vote for them.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018

[Andreas K. Huettel]

Am Montag, 9. April 2018, 02:11:19 CEST schrieb zlg:
> >   We request that the Gentoo Council and the Board of Trustees of the
> >   Gentoo
> >   Foundation affirm Gentoo's metastructure GLEP 39 as the governing
> >   principle
> >   of the Gentoo Linux developer community. In particular, both acknowledge
> >   the split between
> >   
> >     - the Gentoo Council, which is responsible for the Gentoo Linux
> >     developer
> >     
> >       community, its user base and all technical decisions,
> >     
> >     - and the Gentoo Foundation, whose role is to hold Gentoo's assets
> >     
> >       (such as trademarks and server infrastructure) and support the
> >       developer
> >       and user community.

[snip]
> 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?


This proposal describes precisely
* how I was taught "Gentoo works" for my quizzes sometime around 2010
* how the cooperation and separation of responsibilities between council and 
foundation worked for the years since then
* and what was the basis of understanding for council and trustees elections

Thus, we are asking for an affirmation of the status quo, nothing else.


-- 
Andreas K. Hüttel
dilfridge@gentoo.org
Gentoo Linux developer 
(council, toolchain, perl, libreoffice, comrel)

Re: [gentoo-project] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2117 bytes --]

On 18-04-09 10:23:53, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Am Montag, 9. April 2018, 02:11:19 CEST schrieb zlg:
> > >   We request that the Gentoo Council and the Board of Trustees of the
> > >   Gentoo
> > >   Foundation affirm Gentoo's metastructure GLEP 39 as the governing
> > >   principle
> > >   of the Gentoo Linux developer community. In particular, both acknowledge
> > >   the split between
> > >   
> > >     - the Gentoo Council, which is responsible for the Gentoo Linux
> > >     developer
> > >     
> > >       community, its user base and all technical decisions,
> > >     
> > >     - and the Gentoo Foundation, whose role is to hold Gentoo's assets
> > >     
> > >       (such as trademarks and server infrastructure) and support the
> > >       developer
> > >       and user community.
> 
> [snip]
> > 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?
> 
> 
> This proposal describes precisely
> * how I was taught "Gentoo works" for my quizzes sometime around 2010
You could have been taught wrong
> * how the cooperation and separation of responsibilities between council and 
> foundation worked for the years since then
Just means it's been disfunctional for years
> * and what was the basis of understanding for council and trustees elections
> 
> Thus, we are asking for an affirmation of the status quo, nothing else.
What you believe the status quo to be (even if that status quo may or
may not be wrong).
>

In any case, please make individual requests to the NFP list, that is
where discussion should be happening.  Mail on the project list is not
valid in the context of the foundation (making requests).  This thread
is already going to be impossible to go though, looking for items.  One
topic per thread, if you wish to amend the topic, do so, but take
sidebar discussions to another thread.

-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)

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

Re: [gentoo-project] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018

[Luca Barbato]

On 09/04/2018 18:56, Matthew Thode wrote:
> On 18-04-09 10:23:53, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>> Am Montag, 9. April 2018, 02:11:19 CEST schrieb zlg:
>>>>   We request that the Gentoo Council and the Board of Trustees of the
>>>>   Gentoo
>>>>   Foundation affirm Gentoo's metastructure GLEP 39 as the governing
>>>>   principle
>>>>   of the Gentoo Linux developer community. In particular, both acknowledge
>>>>   the split between
>>>>   
>>>>     - the Gentoo Council, which is responsible for the Gentoo Linux
>>>>     developer
>>>>     
>>>>       community, its user base and all technical decisions,
>>>>     
>>>>     - and the Gentoo Foundation, whose role is to hold Gentoo's assets
>>>>     
>>>>       (such as trademarks and server infrastructure) and support the
>>>>       developer
>>>>       and user community.
>>
>> [snip]
>>> 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?
>>
>>
>> This proposal describes precisely
>> * how I was taught "Gentoo works" for my quizzes sometime around 2010
> You could have been taught wrong

Well, I'm part of this community since pretty much the beginning, that
was the idea when the whole metastructure got created.

>> * how the cooperation and separation of responsibilities between council and 
>> foundation worked for the years since then

> Just means it's been disfunctional for years

Since nobody complained about it, I tend to disagree...

lu

Re: [gentoo-project] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2077 bytes --]

On 18-04-09 20:36:13, Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 09/04/2018 18:56, Matthew Thode wrote:
> > On 18-04-09 10:23:53, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> >> Am Montag, 9. April 2018, 02:11:19 CEST schrieb zlg:
> >>>>   We request that the Gentoo Council and the Board of Trustees of the
> >>>>   Gentoo
> >>>>   Foundation affirm Gentoo's metastructure GLEP 39 as the governing
> >>>>   principle
> >>>>   of the Gentoo Linux developer community. In particular, both acknowledge
> >>>>   the split between
> >>>>   
> >>>>     - the Gentoo Council, which is responsible for the Gentoo Linux
> >>>>     developer
> >>>>     
> >>>>       community, its user base and all technical decisions,
> >>>>     
> >>>>     - and the Gentoo Foundation, whose role is to hold Gentoo's assets
> >>>>     
> >>>>       (such as trademarks and server infrastructure) and support the
> >>>>       developer
> >>>>       and user community.
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>> 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?
> >>
> >>
> >> This proposal describes precisely
> >> * how I was taught "Gentoo works" for my quizzes sometime around 2010
> > You could have been taught wrong
> 
> Well, I'm part of this community since pretty much the beginning, that
> was the idea when the whole metastructure got created.
> 
> >> * how the cooperation and separation of responsibilities between council and 
> >> foundation worked for the years since then
> 
> > Just means it's been disfunctional for years
> 
> Since nobody complained about it, I tend to disagree...
> 

My replies here were more snark than substance, so not really helpful.
To be more clear about it, the first comment had 'COULD' in the
sentence, meaning possibility, not certianty and extends to the second
comment.  Sorry for any confusion.

-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)

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

Re: [gentoo-project] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018

[Alexis Ballier]

On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 17:11:19 -0700
zlg <zlg@gentoo.org> wrote:
> The Council is not offering anything equitable in return for a
> Foundation motion.

Cut it short here: Nobody is, nor should be, trying to strike a good
deal here. Thinking that way is the highway to having a new legal entity
competing with the foundation.


Alexis.

Re: [gentoo-project] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018

[Michał Górny]

Dnia 8 kwietnia 2018 22:43:03 CEST, Matthias Maier <tamiko@gentoo.org> napisał(a):
>On Sun, Apr  8, 2018, at 15:27 CDT, Matthew Thode
><prometheanfire@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> =======
>> If you have any additions you wish to make, please submit it to the
>> gentoo-nfp list at least 48 hours before the meeting is to take
>place.
>
>
>We request the Board of Trustees to make the following motion part of
>their next meeting agenda, we will ask for a formal vote by council at
>the next council meeting:
>
>
>We request that the Gentoo Council and the Board of Trustees of the
>Gentoo
>Foundation affirm Gentoo's metastructure GLEP 39 as the governing
>principle
>of the Gentoo Linux developer community. In particular, both
>acknowledge
>  the split between
>- the Gentoo Council, which is responsible for the Gentoo Linux
>developer
>      community, its user base and all technical decisions,
>    - and the Gentoo Foundation, whose role is to hold Gentoo's assets
>(such as trademarks and server infrastructure) and support the
>developer
>      and user community.

I would go even further and finally cease the completely independent proceedings of the Foundation. Its purpose is to serve the developers, and developers choose their lead in the Council (with new election, ofc).

Most notably, I'd say that all major decisions, including financial and legal matters, should go through Council. Trustees should merely be a 'legal gateway' that confirms or rejects decisions based on the legal implications but doesn't make independent decisions.

This would finally end debates over who is responsible for which area of Gentoo, concerns of 'two headed beast', concerns of Trustees making decisions without awareness of events inside Gentoo (dev status reform, anyone?) and risks of Trustees using their control e.g. over resources to pursue their own goals.

The current model is suboptimal e.g. when infra requests funding from Trustees without actually consulting the goals with Gentoo representatives.

>
>
>Best,
>Matthias and Andreas


-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny (by phone)

Re: [gentoo-project] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018

[Alec Warner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2384 bytes --]

On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 4:27 PM, Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@gentoo.org>
wrote:

> The canonical version of this agenda is located at:
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Meetings/2018/04
>
> The time / date / location of the meeting are as follows
> Saturday, April 21 2018 22:00 UTC on irc.freenode.net #gentoo-trustees
>
> Alicef:
>   - Add Foundation:Consultants reference to https://www.gentoo.org/support
>     - This seems to be done already, just need an ack for removal
>   - (non-corporate) donors / "friends" page
>   - licencing update (with ulm)
>
> klondike: request for accounting / bookkeeping (status update, with K_F)
>
> prometheanfire: openssl ecc update (stabilize 1.1)
>
> Infra update: jmbsvicetto
> Treasurer update: robbat2
>
> Open Bugs: https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=
> UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=IN_
> PROGRESS&bug_status=VERIFIED&email2=trustees&emailassigned_
> to2=1&emailcc2=1&emailreporter2=1&emailtype2=substring&known_name=
> TrusteesOpenBugs&list_id=3290194&order=Last%20Changed&query_based_on=
> TrusteesOpenBugs&query_format=advanced&resolution=---
>
> Cleanup:  Next meeting: Saturday, May 19 2018 22:00 UTC
>
> Open Floor
>
> =======
> If you have any additions you wish to make, please submit it to the
> gentoo-nfp list at least 48 hours before the meeting is to take place.
>

I would propose that in lieu of the motion requested by Matthias and
Andreas the board should put forth a roadmap
to dissolution. The roadmap might look like the following:

   1. Return to financial health by completing tax compliance, and hiring a
   bookkeeper / accountant for ongoing accounting work.
   2. Exploration of umbrella support of the organization.
   3. Dissolution of the Foundation with assets transferred to said
   umbrella.

It might contain timelines like:

   1. The board expects to secure an accountant by August 2018 and return
   to financial health by April 2019.
   2. Exploration of umbrella support will begin by August 2018 and last
   until Dec 2018 (at which point the board should have an umbrella selected,
   or not.)
   3. File dissolution papers and transfer remaining assets to umbrella by
   August 2019.

I think this sends a much better message than some non-binding statement
(not that this timeline is necessarily binding either.)

-A


> --
> Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3909 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018

[Matthias Maier]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2963 bytes --]

Dear Matthew,

I would like to reiterate our request with a slightly modified version.



On Sun, Apr  8, 2018, at 15:27 CDT, Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@gentoo.org> wrote:

> =======
> If you have any additions you wish to make, please submit it to the
> gentoo-nfp list at least 48 hours before the meeting is to take place.


We request the Board of Trustees to make the following motion part of
their next meeting agenda, we will ask for a formal vote by council at
the next council meeting:


  We request that the Board of Trustees of the Gentoo Foundation and the
  Gentoo Council affirm Gentoo's metastructure GLEP 39 as the governing  
  principle of the Gentoo Linux developer community. In particular, both
  acknowledge the intended (non-exclusive) split between
      - the Gentoo Developer community, currently lead by the Gentoo Council,
        which is responsible for the developer community, its user base and
        all technical development decisions,
      - and the Gentoo Foundation, whose role is to hold Gentoo's assets
        (such as trademarks and server infrastructure) and support the
        developer and user community. Although the Board of Trustees
        exercises its own independent judgment on every decision, it
        generally carries out requests from the community.


Rationale:

(a) We merely want to reaffirm the current status quo, that is
    specifically:

    * GLEP 39: https://www.gentoo.org/glep/glep-0039.html

    * https://www.gentoo.org/inside-gentoo/foundation/
      ""
      In order to sustain the current quality and development swiftness the
      Gentoo project needs a framework for intellectual property protection
      and financial contributions while limiting the contributors’ legal
      exposure. The Gentoo Foundation will embody this framework without
      intervening in the Gentoo development. This latter aspect should be
      seen as a clear separation between coordinating the Gentoo development
      and protecting Gentoo’s assets. Both are distinct concepts requiring
      different skills and working methods.
      ""

(b) This separation has worked well for many open source projects,
    exemplarily we mention

    * https://www.spi-inc.org/

    * https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution#item-9
      ""
      An organisation holding assets for Debian has no authority regarding
      Debian's technical or nontechnical decisions, except that no decision
      by Debian with respect to any property held by the organisation shall
      require it to act outside its legal authority.
      ""

(c) It is legally not possible for quite a number of Gentoo developers
    to have an office status or board member status in the Gentoo
    Foundation. This is because quite a number of employers in academia
    and industry view this as a conflict of interest.


Best,
Matthias and Andreas

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 850 bytes --]