[gentoo-project] A committee to review umbrellas as a new home for Gentoo assets.

[gentoo-project] A committee to review umbrellas as a new home for Gentoo assets.

[Alec Warner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 848 bytes --]

According to the bylaws and NM law, the board may direct the formation of
specific committees. I recommend we form an adhoc research committee to do
the following:

1) Draw up a list of requirements for umbrella organizations (output, a
document of requirements.)
2) Draw up a list of umbrella organizations (SPI, SFC, etc.)
3) Evaluate each umbrella organization with regards to requirements in 1.
4) Provide a non-binding recommendation to the board.

NM law requires a committee have at least 2 board members, I nominate
myself and Robin. The committee may enlist the assistance of non-board
members (many of whom are CC'd; I also CC'd gentoo-project as there are
similar threads there.

Forming such a committee requires a vote of the board; I will put this on
the Agenda for the February meeting of the board and we can vote at that
time.

-A

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1034 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] A committee to review umbrellas as a new home for Gentoo assets.

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 797 bytes --]

On Monday, January 16, 2017 2:38:55 PM EST Alec Warner wrote:
> According to the bylaws and NM law, the board may direct the formation of
> specific committees. I recommend we form an adhoc research committee to do
> the following:
> 
> 1) Draw up a list of requirements for umbrella organizations (output, a
> document of requirements.)
> 2) Draw up a list of umbrella organizations (SPI, SFC, etc.)
> 3) Evaluate each umbrella organization with regards to requirements in 1.
> 4) Provide a non-binding recommendation to the board.

A missing step should be to inquire with each to see if they can take Gentoo. 
If Gentoo will not qualify, be approved, etc. There is not much to recommend.

Example, in the past the SFC could not afford to take on Gentoo financially.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] A committee to review umbrellas as a new home for Gentoo assets.

[Robin H. Johnson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1418 bytes --]

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 02:38:55PM -0800, Alec Warner wrote:
> According to the bylaws and NM law, the board may direct the formation of
> specific committees. I recommend we form an adhoc research committee to do
> the following:
> 
> 1) Draw up a list of requirements for umbrella organizations (output, a
> document of requirements.)
#1 requirement: must be willing to take Gentoo as a member.

> 2) Draw up a list of umbrella organizations (SPI, SFC, etc.)
> 3) Evaluate each umbrella organization with regards to requirements in 1.
I think many of the orgs will say no to #1, but ideally each org has a
well defined set of criteria for joining, that we can evaluate Gentoo
against.

> NM law requires a committee have at least 2 board members, I nominate
> myself and Robin. The committee may enlist the assistance of non-board
> members (many of whom are CC'd; I also CC'd gentoo-project as there are
> similar threads there.
I decline the nomination, on account of needing time to spend on family
matters; I will help where possible, but will commit to spending
additional time on this (my remaining trustee term is dedicated to the
financial matters).

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux: Dev, Infra Lead, Foundation Trustee & Treasurer
E-Mail   : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85
GnuPG FP : 7D0B3CEB E9B85B1F 825BCECF EE05E6F6 A48F6136

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 1083 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] A committee to review umbrellas as a new home for Gentoo assets.

[Raymond Jennings]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1706 bytes --]

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Robin H. Johnson <robbat2@gentoo.org>
wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 02:38:55PM -0800, Alec Warner wrote:
> > According to the bylaws and NM law, the board may direct the formation of
> > specific committees. I recommend we form an adhoc research committee to
> do
> > the following:
> >
> > 1) Draw up a list of requirements for umbrella organizations (output, a
> > document of requirements.)
> #1 requirement: must be willing to take Gentoo as a member.
>
> > 2) Draw up a list of umbrella organizations (SPI, SFC, etc.)
> > 3) Evaluate each umbrella organization with regards to requirements in 1.
> I think many of the orgs will say no to #1, but ideally each org has a
> well defined set of criteria for joining, that we can evaluate Gentoo
> against.
>
> > NM law requires a committee have at least 2 board members, I nominate
> > myself and Robin. The committee may enlist the assistance of non-board
> > members (many of whom are CC'd; I also CC'd gentoo-project as there are
> > similar threads there.
> I decline the nomination, on account of needing time to spend on family
> matters; I will help where possible, but will commit to spending
> additional time on this (my remaining trustee term is dedicated to the
> financial matters).
>
> --
> Robin Hugh Johnson
> Gentoo Linux: Dev, Infra Lead, Foundation Trustee & Treasurer
> E-Mail   : robbat2@gentoo.org
> GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85
> GnuPG FP : 7D0B3CEB E9B85B1F 825BCECF EE05E6F6 A48F6136
>

If I may ask, why isn't the Gentoo Foundation itself suited to be the
organization?

If there are any problems can't it just elect new trustees or change its
bylaws or something?

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2431 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] A committee to review umbrellas as a new home for Gentoo assets.

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 425 bytes --]

On 01/25/2017 02:00 PM, Raymond Jennings wrote:
> If I may ask, why isn't the Gentoo Foundation itself suited to be the
> organization?
> 
> If there are any problems can't it just elect new trustees or change its
> bylaws or something?

We can't change the bylaws to go against NM law, but we can make some
changes if requested.  Also, elections can happen (and do happen).

-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)


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

Re: [gentoo-project] A committee to review umbrellas as a new home for Gentoo assets.

[Alec Warner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3009 bytes --]

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 12:00 PM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Robin H. Johnson <robbat2@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 02:38:55PM -0800, Alec Warner wrote:
>> > According to the bylaws and NM law, the board may direct the formation
>> of
>> > specific committees. I recommend we form an adhoc research committee to
>> do
>> > the following:
>> >
>> > 1) Draw up a list of requirements for umbrella organizations (output, a
>> > document of requirements.)
>> #1 requirement: must be willing to take Gentoo as a member.
>>
>> > 2) Draw up a list of umbrella organizations (SPI, SFC, etc.)
>> > 3) Evaluate each umbrella organization with regards to requirements in
>> 1.
>> I think many of the orgs will say no to #1, but ideally each org has a
>> well defined set of criteria for joining, that we can evaluate Gentoo
>> against.
>>
>> > NM law requires a committee have at least 2 board members, I nominate
>> > myself and Robin. The committee may enlist the assistance of non-board
>> > members (many of whom are CC'd; I also CC'd gentoo-project as there are
>> > similar threads there.
>> I decline the nomination, on account of needing time to spend on family
>> matters; I will help where possible, but will commit to spending
>> additional time on this (my remaining trustee term is dedicated to the
>> financial matters).
>>
>> --
>> Robin Hugh Johnson
>> Gentoo Linux: Dev, Infra Lead, Foundation Trustee & Treasurer
>> E-Mail   : robbat2@gentoo.org
>> GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85
>> GnuPG FP : 7D0B3CEB E9B85B1F 825BCECF EE05E6F6 A48F6136
>>
>
> If I may ask, why isn't the Gentoo Foundation itself suited to be the
> organization?
>
> If there are any problems can't it just elect new trustees or change its
> bylaws or something?
>

Not to insult the previous trustees, but I can't say the existing board
(including myself) has done a great job; nor have previous boards.

Could a new board be elected? Sure. Foundation members have this power. But
people have to stand for nomination to the board. If no one is interested
in running the non-profit it becomes difficult to further the argument that
the existing non-profit is suited.

In the past the non-profit was run in a "keep the lights on" fashion. We
took in money, paid bills and filled paperwork. If that is what the
Foundation's responsibilities end up being; then I think it will remain
difficult to find board members and there is really not much advantage to
having a separate non-profit at all. We might as well just join an umbrella
organization.

If the Foundation was to be more active (raise more money, have complex
interactions, employees, etc.) then being an umbrella is risky because
there can be a lot of friction from that sort of structure. However very
few individuals seem to want a more active Foundation and I see many in the
developer community oppose such activities. So I don't see an active
Foundation as likely.

-A

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4418 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Re: [gentoo-project] A committee to review umbrellas as a new home for Gentoo assets.

[Rich Freeman]

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> If the Foundation was to be more active (raise more money, have complex
> interactions, employees, etc.) then being an umbrella is risky because there
> can be a lot of friction from that sort of structure. However very few
> individuals seem to want a more active Foundation and I see many in the
> developer community oppose such activities. So I don't see an active
> Foundation as likely.
>

There are pros and cons to either model.  IMO the Umbrella org
approach could make sense in a model where this side of the distro is
more active, because it lets people interested in doing things like
fundraising and such focus more on that stuff (and spending the money)
and less on ledgers and taxes.  At least, up until a point - at some
point the independent Foundation makes more sense (especially if
you're talking actual employees and such).

So, maybe viewed another way, here is a hierarchy of levels of sophistication:
Level 0 - keep the lights on (minimal filings, follow the law, pay the
hosting bills, accept paypal donations).
I think an umbrella org can basically relieve anybody from doing
anything more than sending them invoices and money.

Level 1 - a dose of activism (crowdfunding for feature requests,
bounties, some events/promotions, etc, but no employees or really
expensive obligations beyond basic infra; all obligations are taken on
as funds are available).
I think an umbrella org is also ideal here because it lets us focus
more on the high-value stuff and less on keeping the lights on.

Level 2 - a serious concern (think Apache/Mozilla/etc; staff that does
Gentoo stuff at least part time; ongoing obligations and operating
costs that are significant).
I think an umbrella org will fail hard here.  At this point we need a
Foundation that is probably as big as all of SPI and such.  We need
people full-time just making sure that the cash flow is there to pay
all the bills.

I think the reality is that today we struggle with Level 0 with dreams
of doing Level 1.  If we were ever to get to Level 2 (which seems
unlikely to me) we could always form a 501c3 and have the assets
transferred back to it, probably with a cleaner shot of things without
the issues with the existing Foundation history.  Creating a 501c3 (or
something similar) wouldn't be nearly as big a problem if we really
were operating at a level where we were even contemplating operating
at this level, since we'd probably have near-fulltime volunteers
already and a pretty big cash flow to hire the necessary expertise.

I think trying to optimize for Level 2 right now just doesn't make
sense.  It is like a startup blowing its seed money on a huge
corporate headquarters.  If we become the next Mozilla that stuff will
take care of itself.  Now, if we get stuck and no umbrella will have
us then we have no choice but to carry on, but IMO it isn't the place
we want to be right now...


-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] A committee to review umbrellas as a new home for Gentoo assets.

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3055 bytes --]

On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 12:30:06 PM EST Alec Warner wrote:
>
> Not to insult the previous trustees, but I can't say the existing board
> (including myself) has done a great job; nor have previous boards.

I disagree! When I was a Trustee things were run right and happening;
by Laws, bank account, foundation reinstatement, and more was to come...

This is what happens when you drive people away and fail to attract others 
with the necessary skills and abilities.

Which given that Alec[1] was the one who complained about me to devrel in 
2008. Then proceeded to replace me on the board. With the board returning to 
its prior neglected state. I find that very ironic!

People looking to protect Gentoo, in turn cause greater harm!

> Could a new board be elected? Sure. Foundation members have this power. But
> people have to stand for nomination to the board. If no one is interested
> in running the non-profit it becomes difficult to further the argument that
> the existing non-profit is suited.

This is because what you all have done. I realize you cannot look from the 
outside. But go back to 2008 as an outsider.

You see a Trustee who was getting stuff done resign. Then you see them banned 
from the Foundation -nfp mailing list. Then you see acting being taken against 
them. Which motivates them to leaving Gentoo entirely, retiring as a 
developer.

That sends a HORRIBLE message to people outside the project. Why would anyone 
want to put their neck on the line. Be legally responsible for others. Who in 
turn treat them such ways?

Then you wonder why no one else has wanted to take on such roles... Seriously?

> In the past the non-profit was run in a "keep the lights on" fashion. We
> took in money, paid bills and filled paperwork. If that is what the
> Foundation's responsibilities end up being; then I think it will remain
> difficult to find board members and there is really not much advantage to
> having a separate non-profit at all. We might as well just join an umbrella
> organization.

This was how things were before I ran and I ran to change things. Things were 
changing, but others like now decided to get to involved. Most all those who 
got involved then, in 2008. Are no longer Gentoo developers, and surely do not 
care about the Foundation anymore. Just got in the way of progress!

> If the Foundation was to be more active (raise more money, have complex
> interactions, employees, etc.) then being an umbrella is risky because
> there can be a lot of friction from that sort of structure. However very
> few individuals seem to want a more active Foundation and I see many in the
> developer community oppose such activities. So I don't see an active
> Foundation as likely.

Few people care about Gentoo. Something many keep overlooking. None of their 
comments or focus is in attracting more to the project. Given most have the 
complete opposite effect.

1.  https://236479.bugs.gentoo.org/attachment.cgi?id=164422
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=236479#c16

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] A committee to review umbrellas as a new home for Gentoo assets.

[Kristian Fiskerstrand]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 588 bytes --]

On 01/26/2017 04:57 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> That sends a HORRIBLE message to people outside the project. Why would anyone 
> want to put their neck on the line. Be legally responsible for others. Who in 
> turn treat them such ways?

At least from my perspective they did the correct thing so it has
increased my belief in historical Gentoo actions.

Now please stop spamming the mailing list, we've gotten your point.

-- 
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] A committee to review umbrellas as a new home for Gentoo assets.

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1138 bytes --]

On Friday, January 27, 2017 3:54:50 PM EST Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 01/26/2017 04:57 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> > That sends a HORRIBLE message to people outside the project. Why would
> > anyone want to put their neck on the line. Be legally responsible for
> > others. Who in turn treat them such ways?
> 
> At least from my perspective they did the correct thing so it has
> increased my belief in historical Gentoo actions.

Clearly you have the wrong perspective. Driving away people getting stuff done 
to replace them with people who do not. That is not a good thing!

Things like The SPI/SFC would have been resolved years ago. That is hardly 
progress that they are still not done and being discussed a decade later.

> Now please stop spamming the mailing list, we've gotten your point.

Clearly you have not given your previous comment and this one.

Spamming is discussing something like umbrella organizations. When no one has 
even bothered to find out if Gentoo could even be accepted. Not to mention a 
topic covered several times in the past on the proper mailing list -nfp.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] A committee to review umbrellas as a new home for Gentoo assets.

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 334 bytes --]

Am Freitag, 27. Januar 2017, 12:34:07 CET schrieb William L. Thomson Jr.:
>
> Clearly you have the wrong perspective. 
>

No, clearly you have the wrong perspective!

</me stomps foot onto ground and goes back to the sandbox.>

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

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