[gentoo-project] Gentoo metastructure reform - reality and SPI

[gentoo-project] Gentoo metastructure reform - reality and SPI

[Michael Palimaka]

There has been a lot of debate recently regarding Gentoo’s
metastructure. In response to this, there have been various proposals
for reform. These other proposals appear to be focused on changing the
way Gentoo operates to conform with a traditional corporate structure.
I’d like to make an alternative proposal - change the organisational
structure to conform with how Gentoo actually operates.

Let’s first consider the proposed metastructure of another proposal
that’s currently being discussed:

        |--Council--(various projects)
        |
        |          |--Recruiting
Board --+--Comrel--|
        |          |--Something else
        |
        |--PR
        |         |--Releng (if recognized)
        |--Infra--|
                  |--Portage (possibly)

This is a reasonable-looking traditional corporate structure, but Gentoo
is not a traditional corporation. Our primary purpose is to produce a
Linux distribution. The Gentoo Foundation exists to handles legal and
administrative matters and should serve the distribution, not the other
way around.

Despite the best efforts of the Board, the Foundation has repeatedly
been plagued with problems such as poor record-keeping and at one point
even fell into bad standing. I very much appreciate the work the
Trustees have put in (especially in recent months to try and straighten
everything out), but I have serious concerns about the Foundation’s
long-term prospects, let alone handing them more responsibilities and power.

Gentoo is a community-driven project lead by the Council, and we should
keep it that way. I therefore propose we follow the lead of other major
projects[0] and become associated with SPI[1], making use of their
various services[2] such as accepting donations, and holding funds and
other assets. As an associated project, Gentoo would retain its
independence - SPI would not own, govern, or otherwise control us.

SPI requires an associated project to have a liaison - a person who is
authorised to direct SPI on behalf of the project. I propose this person
be a Council member, selected from a vote of all Council members. Such a
person must receive at least 50% of total votes and no ‘no’ votes. If
this process fails to result in the selection of a liaison it will go to
a majority vote from all developers.

The new metastructure would look like this:

        |-- SPI liaison
        |
        |
Council -- Various projects


[0] http://www.spi-inc.org/projects/
[1] http://www.spi-inc.org/
[2] http://www.spi-inc.org/projects/services/

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo metastructure reform - reality and SPI

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2929 bytes --]

On 01/11/2017 02:03 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> There has been a lot of debate recently regarding Gentoo’s
> metastructure. In response to this, there have been various proposals
> for reform. These other proposals appear to be focused on changing the
> way Gentoo operates to conform with a traditional corporate structure.
> I’d like to make an alternative proposal - change the organisational
> structure to conform with how Gentoo actually operates.
> 
> Let’s first consider the proposed metastructure of another proposal
> that’s currently being discussed:
> 
>         |--Council--(various projects)
>         |
>         |          |--Recruiting
> Board --+--Comrel--|
>         |          |--Something else
>         |
>         |--PR
>         |         |--Releng (if recognized)
>         |--Infra--|
>                   |--Portage (possibly)
> 
> This is a reasonable-looking traditional corporate structure, but Gentoo
> is not a traditional corporation. Our primary purpose is to produce a
> Linux distribution. The Gentoo Foundation exists to handles legal and
> administrative matters and should serve the distribution, not the other
> way around.
> 
> Despite the best efforts of the Board, the Foundation has repeatedly
> been plagued with problems such as poor record-keeping and at one point
> even fell into bad standing. I very much appreciate the work the
> Trustees have put in (especially in recent months to try and straighten
> everything out), but I have serious concerns about the Foundation’s
> long-term prospects, let alone handing them more responsibilities and power.
> 
> Gentoo is a community-driven project lead by the Council, and we should
> keep it that way. I therefore propose we follow the lead of other major
> projects[0] and become associated with SPI[1], making use of their
> various services[2] such as accepting donations, and holding funds and
> other assets. As an associated project, Gentoo would retain its
> independence - SPI would not own, govern, or otherwise control us.
> 
> SPI requires an associated project to have a liaison - a person who is
> authorised to direct SPI on behalf of the project. I propose this person
> be a Council member, selected from a vote of all Council members. Such a
> person must receive at least 50% of total votes and no ‘no’ votes. If
> this process fails to result in the selection of a liaison it will go to
> a majority vote from all developers.
> 
> The new metastructure would look like this:
> 
>         |-- SPI liaison
>         |
>         |
> Council -- Various projects
> 
> 
> [0] http://www.spi-inc.org/projects/
> [1] http://www.spi-inc.org/
> [2] http://www.spi-inc.org/projects/services/
> 

I'm fine with this if this is what we decide to do (be externally
governed).  Thanks for taking this up :P

-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)


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

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo metastructure reform - reality and SPI

[Kristian Fiskerstrand]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1266 bytes --]

On 01/11/2017 09:03 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> Gentoo is a community-driven project lead by the Council, and we should
> keep it that way. I therefore propose we follow the lead of other major
> projects[0] and become associated with SPI[1], making use of their
> various services[2] such as accepting donations, and holding funds and
> other assets. As an associated project, Gentoo would retain its
> independence - SPI would not own, govern, or otherwise control us.

The proposed metastructure will also work with a Foundation being a
project under council. Various alternatives could be discussed related
to this, and I tend to agree an external entity can be beneficial, in
particular given shared resources, but in the event it is not feasible
or wanted, the foundation could be structured with bylaws that gives
Council mandate to be the voting body and appoint Directors. I
personally believe, in such a scenario, that professional help should be
brought in for some of the tasks, in particular a certified professional
accountant should be used to keep accounts and handle tax reporting.

-- 
Kristian Fiskerstrand
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo metastructure reform - reality and SPI

[Matthias Maier]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 354 bytes --]


> I'm fine with this if this is what we decide to do (be externally
> governed).  Thanks for taking this up :P

The very idea of SPI is that projects using their project services are
exactly *not* externally governed [1,2].

Best,
Matthias

[1] http://www.spi-inc.org/projects/relationship/
[2] http://www.spi-inc.org/projects/associated-project-howto/

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 818 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo metastructure reform - reality and SPI

[Daniel Campbell]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2625 bytes --]

On 01/11/2017 12:07 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 01/11/2017 09:03 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
>> Gentoo is a community-driven project lead by the Council, and we should
>> keep it that way. I therefore propose we follow the lead of other major
>> projects[0] and become associated with SPI[1], making use of their
>> various services[2] such as accepting donations, and holding funds and
>> other assets. As an associated project, Gentoo would retain its
>> independence - SPI would not own, govern, or otherwise control us.
> 
> The proposed metastructure will also work with a Foundation being a
> project under council. Various alternatives could be discussed related
> to this, and I tend to agree an external entity can be beneficial, in
> particular given shared resources, but in the event it is not feasible
> or wanted, the foundation could be structured with bylaws that gives
> Council mandate to be the voting body and appoint Directors. I
> personally believe, in such a scenario, that professional help should be
> brought in for some of the tasks, in particular a certified professional
> accountant should be used to keep accounts and handle tax reporting.
> 
In that structure, would Foundation members be given votes equal to
Gentoo Developers? If not, this is simply an inversion of the other model.

Perhaps the better question is "Do we want to have to care about the
boring parts?" If we do care, then we should hire someone qualified. If
we don't, we should leave the non-technical things to whoever and the
Council can focus on the technical. Naturally, this means the liaison
must be trustworthy, but we're already banking a lot of trust on the
existing structure with next to no accountability. Putting someone in a
position that *does* have legal ramifications will serve well to keep
Gentoo's practical interests in mind for the liaison.

As a result, we can focus on things that most of us can influence, like
RFCs, GLEPs, regular ebuild work, etc.

My only concern with SPI and its ilk is control over assets. If
something happens to our agreement, we'd need provisions that ensure we
keep rights to our mark and infra. Without those, it would severely
damage us as a distribution and we'd be dead in the water until we
acquired other infra. Thankfully, the repositories would be safe due to
Git, but the rest is a big concern imo.

It certainly isn't a decision we'll be able to make lightly.

-- 
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C  1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6


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

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo metastructure reform - reality and SPI

[Paweł Hajdan, Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1104 bytes --]

On 11/01/2017 21:03, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> The Gentoo Foundation exists to handles legal and
> administrative matters and should serve the distribution, not the other
> way around.
> 
> Despite the best efforts of the Board, the Foundation has repeatedly
> been plagued with problems such as poor record-keeping and at one point
> even fell into bad standing. I very much appreciate the work the
> Trustees have put in (especially in recent months to try and straighten
> everything out), but I have serious concerns about the Foundation’s
> long-term prospects, let alone handing them more responsibilities and power.
> 
> Gentoo is a community-driven project lead by the Council, and we should
> keep it that way. I therefore propose we follow the lead of other major
> projects[0] and become associated with SPI[1], making use of their
> various services[2] such as accepting donations, and holding funds and
> other assets. As an associated project, Gentoo would retain its
> independence - SPI would not own, govern, or otherwise control us.

I like this idea.

Paweł


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

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo metastructure reform - reality and SPI

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 589 bytes --]

Am Donnerstag, 12. Januar 2017, 07:03:15 CET schrieb Michael Palimaka:
> Gentoo is a community-driven project lead by the Council, and we should
> keep it that way. I therefore propose we follow the lead of other major
> projects[0] and become associated with SPI[1], making use of their
> various services[2] such as accepting donations, and holding funds and
> other assets. As an associated project, Gentoo would retain its
> independence - SPI would not own, govern, or otherwise control us.
> 

++

As said otherwise already, this is the reform proposal which in my opinion is 
best. 

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 981 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo metastructure reform - reality and SPI

[Johannes Huber]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2892 bytes --]

Am Donnerstag, 12. Januar 2017, 07:03:15 CET schrieb Michael Palimaka:
> There has been a lot of debate recently regarding Gentoo’s
> metastructure. In response to this, there have been various proposals
> for reform. These other proposals appear to be focused on changing the
> way Gentoo operates to conform with a traditional corporate structure.
> I’d like to make an alternative proposal - change the organisational
> structure to conform with how Gentoo actually operates.
> 
> Let’s first consider the proposed metastructure of another proposal
> 
> that’s currently being discussed:
>         |--Council--(various projects)
>         |
>         |          |--Recruiting
> 
> Board --+--Comrel--|
> 
>         |          |--Something else
>         |
>         |--PR
>         |
>         |         |--Releng (if recognized)
>         |
>         |--Infra--|
>         |
>                   |--Portage (possibly)
> 
> This is a reasonable-looking traditional corporate structure, but Gentoo
> is not a traditional corporation. Our primary purpose is to produce a
> Linux distribution. The Gentoo Foundation exists to handles legal and
> administrative matters and should serve the distribution, not the other
> way around.
> 
> Despite the best efforts of the Board, the Foundation has repeatedly
> been plagued with problems such as poor record-keeping and at one point
> even fell into bad standing. I very much appreciate the work the
> Trustees have put in (especially in recent months to try and straighten
> everything out), but I have serious concerns about the Foundation’s
> long-term prospects, let alone handing them more responsibilities and power.
> 
> Gentoo is a community-driven project lead by the Council, and we should
> keep it that way. I therefore propose we follow the lead of other major
> projects[0] and become associated with SPI[1], making use of their
> various services[2] such as accepting donations, and holding funds and
> other assets. As an associated project, Gentoo would retain its
> independence - SPI would not own, govern, or otherwise control us.
> 
> SPI requires an associated project to have a liaison - a person who is
> authorised to direct SPI on behalf of the project. I propose this person
> be a Council member, selected from a vote of all Council members. Such a
> person must receive at least 50% of total votes and no ‘no’ votes. If
> this process fails to result in the selection of a liaison it will go to
> a majority vote from all developers.
> 
> The new metastructure would look like this:
>         |-- SPI liaison
> 
> Council -- Various projects
> 
> 
> [0] http://www.spi-inc.org/projects/
> [1] http://www.spi-inc.org/
> [2] http://www.spi-inc.org/projects/services/

 Makes sense to me compared to other proposals.

Greetings,
Johannes

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 981 bytes --]