From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98F94139085 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 16:06:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B6D02234049; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 16:06:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 77A4D234040 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 16:06:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [IPv6:2001:470:e1cc:3::10] (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:e1cc:3::10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: prometheanfire) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A6AAD340FC1 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 16:06:31 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Merging Trustees and Council / Developers and Foundation - 1.0 reply References: <35d4687b-4cbd-cf79-254c-c7476c06bb3a@gentoo.org> <20170111154634.6d2ec503.mgorny@gentoo.org> To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org From: Matthew Thode Message-ID: <58b7d17f-0228-81b9-c90e-9bb1af815385@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 10:06:24 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170111154634.6d2ec503.mgorny@gentoo.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="JtGL7FaOHgJtDmtd88LMco8cQEPBNCXEN" X-Archives-Salt: 2b6ba443-7a4a-45f3-a206-1666888ab5b0 X-Archives-Hash: b363cfacb9655ccba9ffaee5a8090349 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --JtGL7FaOHgJtDmtd88LMco8cQEPBNCXEN Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="lAd6bXgtIvMFTpVpSCNhA83UdnDIwuDXm" From: Matthew Thode Reply-To: prometheanfire@gentoo.org To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Message-ID: <58b7d17f-0228-81b9-c90e-9bb1af815385@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Merging Trustees and Council / Developers and Foundation - 1.0 reply References: <35d4687b-4cbd-cf79-254c-c7476c06bb3a@gentoo.org> <20170111154634.6d2ec503.mgorny@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <20170111154634.6d2ec503.mgorny@gentoo.org> --lAd6bXgtIvMFTpVpSCNhA83UdnDIwuDXm Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 01/11/2017 08:46 AM, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: > Hi, all. >=20 > Since this is getting quite exhaustive, here's my point on the proposal= > as it is hinted now, and a counter-proposal. >=20 > TL;DR: >=20 > 1. I do not mind encouraging more developers to join the Foundation, or= > even making it opt-out. However, I do oppose discriminating developers > who decide not to join the Foundation. >=20 How is it discriminating? As you said below, another option is to have the unified voting pool but vote for two bodies. However, in order to avoid repeating splitting the vote I think that opting out of voting for one should opt you out of voting for all. > 2. I agree on having a single pool of voters. However, I believe those > should be limited to active Gentoo developers, independently of > Foundation membership. >=20 I think this has been more or less agreed upon. > 3. I don't think merging the Council and Trustees is a good idea. > The two projects have divergent goals and different qualities expected > from members. >=20 I mostly agree, but more in the way that Trustees should oversee the distro as a whole, but delegate technical matters to the Council, who are better equipped to deal with them. Non-technical matters would boil up to the Trustees. > Long rationale below. >=20 >=20 > Foundation membership > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >=20 > First of all, I'd like to point out how I see the 'problem' of many > developers not being part of the Foundation. I think that in most > cases, it's just a matter of 'simplicity': why would I bother joining > Gentoo Foundation if it does not affect my Gentoo work? >=20 > I think that many Gentoo developers, especially foreigners, have > serious doubts about implications of being a Foundation member. Even if= > elaborate US lawyers can claim otherwise, we're talking about local law= > here, and for example I had enough of the law without having to wonder > about the implications of formal foreign non-profit corporation > membership. >=20 > So if anyone thinks that developers not being Foundation members are > a problem, then I think it's best solved by spreading more information > about the Foundation and encouragement, not attempting to force people > in. >=20 > If you believe that it is legally safe for any foreigner to be > a Foundation member, then I think it'd be reasonable for recruiters (or= > mentors) to propose that to new developers, and support their effort in= > joining. >=20 > However, I oppose making it obligatory or giving special privileges to > Foundation members. As long as there is no lawful reason to require > anyone to be a Foundation member to do X, I don't think we should > enforce that. And unless I'm mistaken, not even Trustees are legally > required to be members of the Foundation (modulo current Bylaws): >=20 > | Directors need not be residents of New Mexico or members of > | the corporation unless the articles of incorporation or the bylaws > | so require. >=20 > http://www.sos.state.nm.us/uploads/files/Corporations/ch53Art8.pdf >=20 Ya, I think it's legally safe for foreigners to be members of the foundation. So please, join. >=20 > Single pool of voters > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >=20 > I agree that having two disjoint pools of voters for two important > boards running Gentoo might be bad. However, following the point made > above I don't think that Foundation membership should be relevant to > the ability to vote. >=20 > Therefore, I think it would be best if both the Council and Trustees > were elected by active Gentoo developers, in a manner consistent with > how Council is elected nowadays. >=20 > This removes the current Foundation members who are not developers from= > the voter pool. I'm sorry but I believe it's more appropriate that > people who actively develop Gentoo (and have proven to understand its > the organizational structure via passing the quizzes) get a vote > in deciding how Gentoo is run. >=20 > While I believe it's important to remember the history of Gentoo > and acknowledge past contributions to it, I don't think that solely > past contributions should imply the ability to decide (however > indirectly) how Gentoo is run nowadays. >=20 As I said above, I think this has been mostly settled. But I do think that opting out voting for one should opt you out of voting for all. So as to not split the pool again. >=20 > Merged Council and Trustees > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D >=20 > I find this one a really bad idea. I believe that both of these boards > have different goals and therefore require different qualities from > people forming them. >=20 > As I see it, Trustees focus on legal and financial matters, > and therefore it is important that they have good knowledge of laws > applying to the Foundation and/or accounting. It is likely beneficial > for a Trustee to be a resident of the USA, and (as has been pointed > out) probably not everyone is legally entitled to be one. >=20 > Council, on the other hand, focuses on technical (and quasi-social) > matters. It's important for Council members to be capable of good > judgment both on technical and community matters, and being able to > provide resolutions that are beneficial to the community. The location > is pretty much irrelevant here, and the role could be considered > informal by many. >=20 > Now, merging the two institutions would create a board that has a wider= > range of responsibilities, and require all of these qualities together.= > I'm not convinced this will work for us. >=20 > In particular, I see the following potential problems: >=20 > 1. Some developers will reject nominations to the Board because of > legal implications (either inability to be formally a director, or just= > lack of qualities needed for a Trustee) even though they would > otherwise be elected Council members. You can find these developers in > the current Council. >=20 > 2. The board will have to have members competent in law and/or > accounting. It is possible that those members will lack the skills > necessary for Council, yet they would have the same vote on > Council-relevant matters. >=20 > 3. In a pathological case, the voting could result in the board having > no members competent in Trustee business (i.e. purely Council-like > board). What will happen then? >=20 > I don't think those issues could be solved without splitting the board > further. And once we start splitting it, we get back to where we are > now, so why are we changing anything? >=20 This isn't combining their functions into one body, I'll go into it more in the next updated proposal, but the technical leadership role of council would still be handled by a group operating under the 'board'. Having that the parent group (board) and the child group (council) elected by the same body is fine. There is the issue of members of the board overruling on technical matters, but as mentioned elsewhere in the threads that can already happen, and should be restricted by mandate to only happen in cases where technical maters impact areas the board would rule over (comrel pr infra) >=20 > Summary > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >=20 > To be honest, I don't really know what problem is being solved here. > The only problem I've been able to notice so far was the possible > disagreement between the voter pool for the Council and Trustees which > I think we can merge without any drastic measures. >=20 > However, I disagree that merging the pools would result in Council > and Trustees getting implicitly merged. They would still have > different areas of responsibility and required qualities, and therefore= > the developers are still likely to find different people appropriate. >=20 > That said, I don't have an opinion on disallowing a single person from > being on both boards. I don't think it's strictly necessary for any > body in Gentoo as long as the relevant person is going to respectfully > withdraw his vote when a potential conflict of interest arises. >=20 > I have yet to see the final proposal to throw my vote but I already > start to dislike the direction it is heading towards. With no good > rationale, and no good problem statement it seems like a change for > the sake of changing things and/or replacing people. >=20 --=20 Matthew Thode (prometheanfire) --lAd6bXgtIvMFTpVpSCNhA83UdnDIwuDXm-- --JtGL7FaOHgJtDmtd88LMco8cQEPBNCXEN Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJYdlgAAAoJEGSje+quGaTog9MP/0EsgQXHlAHZxqXJ3Ycgk4Mc GcZDna2cyqCVmURFUHQ/nnoXnS/baTtcW47unf1BOEk5WUq6LqTRM6qDjp9kjHYY kx7h3aEFnQGFEuMeOXXm7YmtTI8I12cmIVBJ6hvcsSn430/na5Lb8mFzg7nxlX2k XlWCkoug8cuj5baHVqjkZ8Eyf1pTkoBfRLpz7updvXVUesA+XzBkv9GT1RlOhnsg bvwoEDhVTMQI+CaBA0CuwRhxGM0ef6aDuVNc5nj4NA26d2uCxMVwRcSNq9+jwXUL Cr3gR5M8bOY872j97HNEAP3PivJPOcDbODWKwiYvFij/fj9HovRyXFVqtvUEnE6S TV/o29quryOKr1orcAireCxVt9iIqreNZuUkdefx3XZC20LhhhJix72g0R+lF9q8 fnfF4f0BTvQF0aj1wrnW9ewJAUS0+0v+hP7Gbsn0+yb2/L6cPyxOrNL5qZzxyLlh Lg1MncXcTteQMHIIgC02uJglMflcjBeZUmx65OS5DtT7uHJog/ExpclpclcBZwR4 xKAjep3LtiwxuySZcrCqeMm92eaxajpgJ23bXfKkL3iCtRgm++GkaFH/2coKUeb3 enQpKmUy9dHt3BAnEkuSJh5cZtHTEFgUTNrs0L1dfFdRbMru6gB+Y1qV2scZQ61/ /DuEY/Lb3a/KBrciuBIh =MVW+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --JtGL7FaOHgJtDmtd88LMco8cQEPBNCXEN--