[gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-nfp] Extending Social Contract to guarantee that Gentoo will remain volunteer work

[gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-nfp] Extending Social Contract to guarantee that Gentoo will remain volunteer work

[M. J. Everitt]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3327 bytes --]

On 26/01/17 15:46, Roy Bamford wrote:
> On 2017.01.26 15:03, Michał Górny wrote:
>> [discussion intended at -nfp, CC-ing -project]
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I would like to add an additional clause to the Gentoo Social Contract
>> [1], to guarantee that Gentoo will remain a volunteer-based project
>> and will not turn into some kind of paid enterprise. The suggested
>> text
>> would be:
>>
>> | Gentoo is and will remain independent volunteer work. We will never
>> | pay anyone to develop Gentoo, nor will we accept any donations given
>> | on the condition of any particular development.
>>
>> Text improvements welcome.
>>
> [snip]
>> [1]:https://www.gentoo.org/get-started/philosophy/social-contract.html
>>
>> -- 
>> Best regards,
>> Michał Górny
>> <http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>
>>
> Michał,
>
> In general, I don't have a problem with this but it needs some fine tuning
> to permit 'bug bounties' and the like where there is a well defined scope 
> of work which is good value for Gentoo to pay for for the end result.
>
> The Foundation has paid a bug bounty once that I an aware of.
> The discussion and vote is in the trustees meetings logs.
>
> What about non technical work?
> We may actually need to pay for legal and or financial advice and 
> the like, where we cannot find pro bono support.
>
> If the intent was to rule out paid employees doing what they want and 
> pushing Gentoo wherever they wanted it to go, its not going to happen 
> any time soon. Gentoo cannot afford even a single full time employee.
> Then there are all the admin overheads associated with employee(s).
> In any case, paid employees are assigned work. That would be no 
> different in Gentoo.  Then maybe we would need paid managers too.
>
Whilst I support Roy's comments above, I do feel that actively
Preventing Gentoo from hiring people should a need be identified and
supported and carried by council/trustees/board/<insert authority here>
is a bad idea. Of course, the premise is that there is an identified
need, and the body to authorise such expenditure approves and/or can
justify it (being the "democratically" elected body). I don't suspect,
resource permitting, there is *any* desire from *anyone* with relevant
access to funds, to unilaterally "hire" people for the sake of it.

We seem to be badly obsessed with this principle that the devs (read
"community") do not have the same aims and objectives as the "council"
or the "trustees" and they all have their own motives and means. I
strongly believe that *IF* there are any members or contributors,
mindful of the Dev quiz questions and answers, who /don't/ believe and
strive for the key aims of a "Gentoo Mission Statement" should not be
either influencing or contributing significantly to the Gentoo name or
cause. We are here to build a linux distribution not to "Rule the
Roost", "Inflate our Ego" or "Furnish our Resume/CV/etc" "file taxes"
"carry out specific work for the benefit of any
individual/organisation/institution" etc, etc etc. Let's actually get
behind the same, common aim and get on with the work of building and
maintaining a linux distro and quit the bikeshed about who is pulling
the ropes this way or that. It's not a tug of war, a competition or
other sporting event.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]