[gentoo-project] William Hubbs council manifesto 2018-2019

[gentoo-project] William Hubbs council manifesto 2018-2019

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2221 bytes --]

Hi all,

for those of you who don't know me, I have been a Gentoo developer and a
member of base-system, QA,  and the accessibility project for some time.

I have served on the council for several terms, and I would like to have
the priviledge of serving for another term. Below are my thoughts about
the council and what I think we can do.

I believe the council and trustees should be working as a team to lead
Gentoo. We serve different functions, so there is room for both groups.
We have been adversarial lately and I don't think this is good. As a
council member, I will work to improve this situation.

I feel that we need better code of conduct enforcement and possibly a
more clear code of conduct. I will work with the council and the
Community Relations team to make this happen.

The council should be asked to make a decision on an issue only when
the issue cannot be settled by the community itself. Innovations should
come from the developers, and the council should do what it can to
support these innovations.

When the council is asked to make a decision, it should be fully
informed about both sides of the issue before it votes. On the other
hand, the council should not block progress by taking an extremely long
time to make a decision.

We can learn from the past and improve upon it. Continuing
to do things like we have in the past is not a bad thing in itself.
However, using what we have done in the past to block change can be. I
understand that people are used to doing things a certain way. However,
that alone is not justification for continuing to do things the same way
in the future. if we need to make a change, we should make sure that
change is backward compatible with what we have, or if this is not
possible, provide the smoothest possible transition for our users.
Since the council doesn't maintain all of the packages, the council is
not going to know the technical details of how to make either of these
happen, so I don't feel that the council should mandate specific
implementations.

If anyone has any questions about anything I have said here, please feel
free to ask in this thread.

Other than that, thanks for your time and please participate in the
election.

William


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

Re: [gentoo-project] William Hubbs council manifesto 2018-2019

[Michał Górny]

W dniu sob, 16.06.2018 o godzinie 15∶26 -0500, użytkownik William Hubbs
napisał:
> I believe the council and trustees should be working as a team to lead
> Gentoo. We serve different functions, so there is room for both groups.
> We have been adversarial lately and I don't think this is good. As a
> council member, I will work to improve this situation.

How are you planning to achieve this goal?

> I feel that we need better code of conduct enforcement and possibly a
> more clear code of conduct. I will work with the council and the
> Community Relations team to make this happen.

Again, how?

> The council should be asked to make a decision on an issue only when
> the issue cannot be settled by the community itself. Innovations should
> come from the developers, and the council should do what it can to
> support these innovations.
> 
> When the council is asked to make a decision, it should be fully
> informed about both sides of the issue before it votes. On the other
> hand, the council should not block progress by taking an extremely long
> time to make a decision.

What criteria should the Council consider when making a decision?

> If anyone has any questions about anything I have said here, please feel
> free to ask in this thread.
> 

During the last term, you have suggested that if an individual serving
simultaneously on the Council and QA, then we're dealing with a conflict
of interest.  Are you going to pursue that thread?

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-project] William Hubbs council manifesto 2018-2019

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 675 bytes --]

Hi William, 

> I believe the council and trustees should be working as a team to lead
> Gentoo. We serve different functions, so there is room for both groups.
> We have been adversarial lately and I don't think this is good. As a
> council member, I will work to improve this situation.

We (tamiko & me) asked the trustees formally to agree to the separation of 
functions precisely as it has been handled over the past ~10 years. 
They didn't agree to that.

How would you like to see the separation of functions then?

Cheers, 
Andreas

-- 
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] William Hubbs council manifesto 2018-2019

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1517 bytes --]

On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 12:06:33AM +0200, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Hi William, 
> 
> > I believe the council and trustees should be working as a team to lead
> > Gentoo. We serve different functions, so there is room for both groups.
> > We have been adversarial lately and I don't think this is good. As a
> > council member, I will work to improve this situation.
> 
> We (tamiko & me) asked the trustees formally to agree to the separation of 
> functions precisely as it has been handled over the past ~10 years. 
> They didn't agree to that.
> 
> How would you like to see the separation of functions then?

The separation is pretty straight forward.

- the council handles global technical issues and appeals from comrel/qa.
- the trustees/foundation handle the business side (running the nfp that
  backs us).

I read the proposal by prometheanfire a year ago also and do not quite
see why it was so offensive to some. The way I read it it was
basically making the council a committee in the foundation. The
  council would have still been elected by the developers, and it wasn't
  set up so the Trustees could remove people etc, so there wasn't really
  a way the trustees could control it any more than they control the
  council as it is. If I missed something, tell me.

Regarding comrel, given that more than one person who has been removed
from Gentoo has threatened the foundation with law suits, I can
understand the trustees wanting to be in that loop.

William


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

Re: [gentoo-project] William Hubbs council manifesto 2018-2019

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3173 bytes --]

On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 10:37:51PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> W dniu sob, 16.06.2018 o godzinie 15∶26 -0500, użytkownik William Hubbs
> napisał:
> > I believe the council and trustees should be working as a team to lead
> > Gentoo. We serve different functions, so there is room for both groups.
> > We have been adversarial lately and I don't think this is good. As a
> > council member, I will work to improve this situation.
> 
> How are you planning to achieve this goal?

The main thing that is important to me is to change the tone of the
discussion. Instead of accusations, the discussion should be about
finding what we agree on and trying to resolve, in a positive way for as
many people as possible, what we don't agree on.

> > I feel that we need better code of conduct enforcement and possibly a
> > more clear code of conduct. I will work with the council and the
> > Community Relations team to make this happen.
> 
> Again, how?

There are several examples of CoC's out there that we could look at and
pattern ours after. I would start there.

> > The council should be asked to make a decision on an issue only when
> > the issue cannot be settled by the community itself. Innovations should
> > come from the developers, and the council should do what it can to
> > support these innovations.
> > 
> > When the council is asked to make a decision, it should be fully
> > informed about both sides of the issue before it votes. On the other
> > hand, the council should not block progress by taking an extremely long
> > time to make a decision.
> 
> What criteria should the Council consider when making a decision?

This is going to be different based on whatever the current decision
is.

My main concern is, we aren't in a vaccuum, so we have to balance what
we do with what the rest of the Linux ecosystem does.

The classic example, in my mind, of an ill-informed council decision was
the separate /usr decision in 2012. The intent of that decision was to
try to force us to support setups with separate /usr that did not use an
initramfs. It was overturned eventually, but the council should
have never attempted to mandate this in the first place, since no other
distros have done this.

> 
> > If anyone has any questions about anything I have said here, please feel
> > free to ask in this thread.
> > 
> 
> During the last term, you have suggested that if an individual serving
> simultaneously on the Council and QA, then we're dealing with a conflict
> of interest.  Are you going to pursue that thread?

I'm glad you brought this up.

I need to look back at my original post, but I don't think I used the
phrase "conflict of interest", but yes I still would like to see this
come to a vote.

It would not be a council vote, since it is glep 39 material, but a full
developer vote. There was support for it on the thread, and I have been
contacted by another dev who supports it. I do think it would be worth a
vote to find out what the developers think, and I would support whatever
was decided.

William

> 
> -- 
> Best regards,
> Michał Górny
> 
> 

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

Re: [gentoo-project] William Hubbs council manifesto 2018-2019

[Rich Freeman]

On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 7:29 PM William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> I read the proposal by prometheanfire a year ago also and do not quite
> see why it was so offensive to some. The way I read it it was
> basically making the council a committee in the foundation. The
>   council would have still been elected by the developers, and it wasn't
>   set up so the Trustees could remove people etc, so there wasn't really
>   a way the trustees could control it any more than they control the
>   council as it is. If I missed something, tell me.
>

As I recall the proposal was to have the Council be subordinate to the
Trustees.  That basically means they can do whatever they want.  To
the degree that the policy said that they wouldn't remove people from
Council they could amend that with a simple majority vote, just as
they can change the Bylaws/etc.

Keep in mind that in a corporation the directors are basically at the
very top legally.  Any policy of the corporation can be changed at
their discretion.

This doesn't really seem like a separation of powers.  This is simply
putting the Trustees in charge of everything.  They could of course
choose to not intervene in decisions, but any decision would
effectively be appealable to the Trustees (even if the Trustees vote
to not hear any particular appeal).

If protmetheanfire disagrees that he was proposing to make the Council
subordinate to the Trustees he can of course chime in.

If the Foundation were in better shape I think a structure like that
could work.  You'd simply vote the Council members in to the Trustee
slots, and the Trustees could choose to work as Officers.  Then the
new Trustees would disband the Council so that the technical body is
back on top, and also holds the legal authority.  However, right now
with the mess the Foundation is in I suspect you'd find it difficult
to find volunteers for the Trustee positions that people would be
comfortable having also run the Council.

> Regarding comrel, given that more than one person who has been removed
> from Gentoo has threatened the foundation with law suits, I can
> understand the trustees wanting to be in that loop.

Just another good reason to not have a foundation to sue...

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] William Hubbs council manifesto 2018-2019

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2971 bytes --]

On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 08:17:44PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 7:29 PM William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > I read the proposal by prometheanfire a year ago also and do not quite
> > see why it was so offensive to some. The way I read it it was
> > basically making the council a committee in the foundation. The
> >   council would have still been elected by the developers, and it wasn't
> >   set up so the Trustees could remove people etc, so there wasn't really
> >   a way the trustees could control it any more than they control the
> >   council as it is. If I missed something, tell me.
> >
> 
> As I recall the proposal was to have the Council be subordinate to the
> Trustees.  That basically means they can do whatever they want.  To
> the degree that the policy said that they wouldn't remove people from
> Council they could amend that with a simple majority vote, just as
> they can change the Bylaws/etc.
> 
> Keep in mind that in a corporation the directors are basically at the
> very top legally.  Any policy of the corporation can be changed at
> their discretion.
> 
> This doesn't really seem like a separation of powers.  This is simply
> putting the Trustees in charge of everything.  They could of course
> choose to not intervene in decisions, but any decision would
> effectively be appealable to the Trustees (even if the Trustees vote
> to not hear any particular appeal).

Keep in mind that this is already basically the case. All the trustees
have to do is stop paying for infra and revoke our permission to use the
Gentoo logo, name etc.

> 
> If protmetheanfire disagrees that he was proposing to make the Council
> subordinate to the Trustees he can of course chime in.
> 
> If the Foundation were in better shape I think a structure like that
> could work.  You'd simply vote the Council members in to the Trustee
> slots, and the Trustees could choose to work as Officers.  Then the
> new Trustees would disband the Council so that the technical body is
> back on top, and also holds the legal authority.  However, right now
> with the mess the Foundation is in I suspect you'd find it difficult
> to find volunteers for the Trustee positions that people would be
> comfortable having also run the Council.

My impression is that we are just waiting for robbat2 to catch up the
accounting/tax issues, so the foundation isn't in as big of a mess as
has been spread. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.

> > Regarding comrel, given that more than one person who has been removed
> > from Gentoo has threatened the foundation with law suits, I can
> > understand the trustees wanting to be in that loop.
> 
> Just another good reason to not have a foundation to sue...

Would you rather have the council and comrel members be open to being
sued individually?

I'm no expert, but it seems like the legal entity protects us from this.

William

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

Re: [gentoo-project] William Hubbs council manifesto 2018-2019

[Rich Freeman]

On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 9:42 PM William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> Keep in mind that this is already basically the case. All the trustees
> have to do is stop paying for infra and revoke our permission to use the
> Gentoo logo, name etc.
>

At most that would prevent us from using the logo/name (or it would
require carefully following the logo usage guidelines), and it is
pretty unlikely to happen in any case.  With things as they currently
stand it would be all or nothing - there is no orderly way to appeal
decisions to Trustees short of the Trustees completely destroying the
project, which means that there aren't any appeals.

In any case, I'd much rather see us transition to a model that is more
sustainable than have everybody fight over who is in charge of the
model we currently have.

>
> My impression is that we are just waiting for robbat2 to catch up the
> accounting/tax issues, so the foundation isn't in as big of a mess as
> has been spread. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.
>

Yup, it has been just around the corner for the last 10 years as far
as I've been able to tell from all the optimistic list posts over the
years.  However, as more information comes to light it seems like the
trend has been towards us being further and further behind.  Robin
appears to have done a lot to help fix things, but I'll count those
chickens after they hatch...

> > > Regarding comrel, given that more than one person who has been removed
> > > from Gentoo has threatened the foundation with law suits, I can
> > > understand the trustees wanting to be in that loop.
> >
> > Just another good reason to not have a foundation to sue...
>
> Would you rather have the council and comrel members be open to being
> sued individually?
>
> I'm no expert, but it seems like the legal entity protects us from this.

I don't see how this risk goes up by having an umbrella org own the
name/etc.  In fact, having one that is competently managed probably
would be beneficial to whatever extent it could shield individuals
from being sued.

That said, anybody can name anybody in a lawsuit for anything, at
least in the US.  That doesn't mean that they'd win.  Gentoo can't
stop anybody from suing you.  At best it could offer to pay your legal
bills, though that would be a bit of an empty promise in our current
state.

Keep in mind that nobody around here is an expert, and this is why we
probably should stop trying to run a corporation in our spare time.
That is how you end up not filing your taxes for 14 years and
counting.  Hopefully the IRS will exercise enforcement discretion, but
it isn't really something we want to mess around with.

I just don't see the benefit in having developers moonlighting as
corporate officers.  It is a lot of work, and it is work that for the
most part hasn't been getting done.  Even if Robin saves us, we're
only a year away from falling behind again.  Distros much larger than
ours have been pulling out of this area, and the ones which seem to
remain independent have a lot more funding.  Also, as much as I
appreciate the work Robin has done, I don't see a lot of others
willing to pick up the slack if he ends up stepping down at some point
either.

Having these positions that are hard to fill but which legally have
all kinds of power is also a source of risk, because it basically
means that almost anybody can end up in one of these positions simply
by running for them unopposed.  If it is true that the Trustees can
effectively override the Council today, then what good is it in having
a vigorous debate with 20 people running for 7 council slots, if 3
random people get elected to the Trustees unopposed (or lightly
opposed) and can just overturn their decisions at will?  Shouldn't we
be having the healthy/vigorous competition for the positions that
wield the most power?

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] William Hubbs council manifesto 2018-2019

[M. J. Everitt]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1033 bytes --]

On 17/06/18 03:29, Rich Freeman wrote:
> Having these positions that are hard to fill but which legally have
> all kinds of power is also a source of risk, because it basically
> means that almost anybody can end up in one of these positions simply
> by running for them unopposed.  If it is true that the Trustees can
> effectively override the Council today, then what good is it in having
> a vigorous debate with 20 people running for 7 council slots, if 3
> random people get elected to the Trustees unopposed (or lightly
> opposed) and can just overturn their decisions at will?  Shouldn't we
> be having the healthy/vigorous competition for the positions that
> wield the most power?
>
My synopsis from the peanut gallery, is that everyone wants the power,
with none of the responsibility that conventionally comes with it. Add
to this, some developers have some restrictions as to their involvement
with certain types of organisation, and you end up with the stupid
"two-headed monster" that we see today.


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

Re: [gentoo-project] William Hubbs council manifesto 2018-2019

[Rich Freeman]

On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 10:34 PM M. J. Everitt <m.j.everitt@iee.org> wrote:
>
> My synopsis from the peanut gallery, is that everyone wants the power,
> with none of the responsibility that conventionally comes with it.

The responsibility to run a non-profit corporation is purely
self-imposed.  Plenty of FOSS projects manage to govern themselves
without requiring the people making the final decisions to file tax
returns.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] William Hubbs council manifesto 2018-2019

[M. J. Everitt]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1179 bytes --]

On 17/06/18 03:43, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 10:34 PM M. J. Everitt <m.j.everitt@iee.org> wrote:
>> My synopsis from the peanut gallery, is that everyone wants the power,
>> with none of the responsibility that conventionally comes with it.
> The responsibility to run a non-profit corporation is purely
> self-imposed.  Plenty of FOSS projects manage to govern themselves
> without requiring the people making the final decisions to file tax
> returns.
>
That liability was inherited, not actively chosen by *any* of the devs
of the last decade, or so. To change it, still requires that situation
be resolved .. whatever path is chosen ..

In some ways, winding up Gentoo Foundation, Inc. and starting again with
a 501(c)3 would be a better way forward, but since I don't know the
ins-and-outs of US organisations, I'm gonna stay outta the why's and
wherefores.

Suffice to say, TL;DR we gotta deal with the situation(s) we find
ourselves in today, not bikeshed what we would have done differently, or
who we can blame .. as that achieves nothing, and is wasted effort that
could be better spent elsewhere. Like fixing the problem ..


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

Re: [gentoo-project] William Hubbs council manifesto 2018-2019

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1943 bytes --]

On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 03:50:45AM +0100, M. J. Everitt wrote:
> On 17/06/18 03:43, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 10:34 PM M. J. Everitt <m.j.everitt@iee.org> wrote:
> >> My synopsis from the peanut gallery, is that everyone wants the power,
> >> with none of the responsibility that conventionally comes with it.
> > The responsibility to run a non-profit corporation is purely
> > self-imposed.  Plenty of FOSS projects manage to govern themselves
> > without requiring the people making the final decisions to file tax
> > returns.
> >
> That liability was inherited, not actively chosen by *any* of the devs
> of the last decade, or so. To change it, still requires that situation
> be resolved .. whatever path is chosen ..
> 
> In some ways, winding up Gentoo Foundation, Inc. and starting again with
> a 501(c)3 would be a better way forward, but since I don't know the
> ins-and-outs of US organisations, I'm gonna stay outta the why's and
> wherefores.
> 
> Suffice to say, TL;DR we gotta deal with the situation(s) we find
> ourselves in today, not bikeshed what we would have done differently, or
> who we can blame .. as that achieves nothing, and is wasted effort that
> could be better spent elsewhere. Like fixing the problem ..

Well said.

I'm not an expert on the business side at all. My opinion though is we
should give the trustees time to catch up (I trust that robbat2 will be
able to do this).

Once that happens, I think it is better to work with them to choose the
future path since they own the Gentoo trademark, name, logo etc [1].

The only thing I'm really advocating is, as the leadership of the
organization, we really should look for a way to resolve the situation
without all of the arguing and fighting we are doing currently. All that
does is create discord.

William

[1]
https://www.gentoo.org/inside-gentoo/foundation/name-logo-guidelines.html

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

Re: [gentoo-project] William Hubbs council manifesto 2018-2019

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 1:26 PM William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> My opinion though is we should give the trustees time to catch up
>

How much time?  We're 14 years in, and Robin has been working on the
books for a few years I think.  Don't get me wrong - I appreciate the
work he is doing, but I'm not convinced it is a one-person project,
and it doesn't end when the past is caught up.

>
> Once that happens, I think it is better to work with them to choose the
> future path since they own the Gentoo trademark, name, logo etc [1].
>

Working with somebody isn't the same as deferring everything to them.

The problem with leaving the fate of the Foundation entirely to the
Trustees is that there is a lot of selection bias at work.  Trustees
are a bunch of individuals selected for their interest in running a
non-profit (for the most part, simply volunteering for the post is
sufficient to be voted in).  Should we be surprised when they advocate
for continuing to run a non-profit?

There is also no need to wait for the Foundation to fix everything
before working on a path forward.  Just as individuals can use their
own property to work on Gentoo-related projects, or donate their own
money to the Gentoo Foundation, so other entities can use their own
property to work on Gentoo-related projects, or donate their money to
the Foundation.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] William Hubbs council manifesto 2018-2019

[Alec Warner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3025 bytes --]

On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 1:26 PM William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > My opinion though is we should give the trustees time to catch up
> >
>
> How much time?  We're 14 years in, and Robin has been working on the
> books for a few years I think.  Don't get me wrong - I appreciate the
> work he is doing, but I'm not convinced it is a one-person project,
> and it doesn't end when the past is caught up.
>

I'm fairly confident we can fix the current tax problems (in the end, its a
problem we can solve with money, and we have some money.)
I'm less convinced the non-profit yields any value over other alternatives,
and so from an effort-basis I feel its necessary to wind down and replace
with something else.


>
> >
> > Once that happens, I think it is better to work with them to choose the
> > future path since they own the Gentoo trademark, name, logo etc [1].
> >
>
> Working with somebody isn't the same as deferring everything to them.
>
> The problem with leaving the fate of the Foundation entirely to the
> Trustees is that there is a lot of selection bias at work.  Trustees
> are a bunch of individuals selected for their interest in running a
> non-profit (for the most part, simply volunteering for the post is
> sufficient to be voted in).  Should we be surprised when they advocate
> for continuing to run a non-profit?
>

I really don't think this is true. Its explicitly not true for me. I was a
trustee because there were open slots and someone had to 'keep the lights
on.'
Other people who ran for the board have expressed similar sentiments. I am
running again in the next election on a platform of dissolution (closing
the foundation) which is again contrary to your argument. There is no point
in continuing to run a non-profit that continues to nominally accrue risk
with little or no upside. Eventually it will become so toxic that you will
be unable to find anyone to run it (some may say this has already begun to
happen.) This is evident partially by the board's reduction in numbers.
Previously the board had 13 seats, then 7, then 5. I'm not superbly
confident we will be able to fill 5 seats in the next election.


> There is also no need to wait for the Foundation to fix everything
> before working on a path forward.  Just as individuals can use their
> own property to work on Gentoo-related projects, or donate their own
> money to the Gentoo Foundation, so other entities can use their own
> property to work on Gentoo-related projects, or donate their money to
> the Foundation.
>

I think some of the conflict is a result of communication style (America v
European) and also the internet-based communication methods we use to meet
and converse with each other. I've often pitched something else (audio or
video) but have never reached consensus. This isn't to discount the actual
area of conflict (e.g. Finances) but how ones communicate ones ideas
matters a fair bit.

-A


>
> --
> Rich
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4168 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] William Hubbs council manifesto 2018-2019

[M. J. Everitt]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3781 bytes --]

On 17/06/18 19:07, Alec Warner wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org
> <mailto:rich0@gentoo.org>> wrote:
>
>     On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 1:26 PM William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org
>     <mailto:williamh@gentoo.org>> wrote:
>     >
>     > My opinion though is we should give the trustees time to catch up
>     >
>
>     How much time?  We're 14 years in, and Robin has been working on the
>     books for a few years I think.  Don't get me wrong - I appreciate the
>     work he is doing, but I'm not convinced it is a one-person project,
>     and it doesn't end when the past is caught up.
>
>
> I'm fairly confident we can fix the current tax problems (in the end,
> its a problem we can solve with money, and we have some money.)
> I'm less convinced the non-profit yields any value over other
> alternatives, and so from an effort-basis I feel its necessary to wind
> down and replace
> with something else.
>  
>
>
>     >
>     > Once that happens, I think it is better to work with them to
>     choose the
>     > future path since they own the Gentoo trademark, name, logo etc [1].
>     >
>
>     Working with somebody isn't the same as deferring everything to them.
>
>     The problem with leaving the fate of the Foundation entirely to the
>     Trustees is that there is a lot of selection bias at work.  Trustees
>     are a bunch of individuals selected for their interest in running a
>     non-profit (for the most part, simply volunteering for the post is
>     sufficient to be voted in).  Should we be surprised when they advocate
>     for continuing to run a non-profit?
>
>
> I really don't think this is true. Its explicitly not true for me. I
> was a trustee because there were open slots and someone had to 'keep
> the lights on.'
> Other people who ran for the board have expressed similar sentiments.
> I am running again in the next election on a platform of dissolution
> (closing the foundation) which is again contrary to your argument.
> There is no point in continuing to run a non-profit that continues to
> nominally accrue risk with little or no upside. Eventually it will
> become so toxic that you will be unable to find anyone to run it (some
> may say this has already begun to happen.) This is evident partially
> by the board's reduction in numbers. Previously the board had 13
> seats, then 7, then 5. I'm not superbly confident we will be able to
> fill 5 seats in the next election.
>
>
>     There is also no need to wait for the Foundation to fix everything
>     before working on a path forward.  Just as individuals can use their
>     own property to work on Gentoo-related projects, or donate their own
>     money to the Gentoo Foundation, so other entities can use their own
>     property to work on Gentoo-related projects, or donate their money to
>     the Foundation.
>
>
> I think some of the conflict is a result of communication style
> (America v European) and also the internet-based communication methods
> we use to meet and converse with each other. I've often pitched
> something else (audio or video) but have never reached consensus. This
> isn't to discount the actual area of conflict (e.g. Finances) but how
> ones communicate ones ideas matters a fair bit.
>
> -A
>  
>
>
>     -- 
>     Rich
>
>
Just to avoid confusion, Alex, are you talking about dissolving the
organisation that is Gentoo Foundation, Inc. as a non-profit
corporation, or completely eradicating the Board, Trustees and Officers
such that the day-to-day organisational aspects of Gentoo either moves
to the Council (*shudders*) or to another organisation entirely, with
whatever baggage that ensues?!

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 6713 bytes --]

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

Re: [gentoo-project] William Hubbs council manifesto 2018-2019

[Alec Warner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4123 bytes --]

On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 2:15 PM, M. J. Everitt <m.j.everitt@iee.org> wrote:

> On 17/06/18 19:07, Alec Warner wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 1:26 PM William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > My opinion though is we should give the trustees time to catch up
>> >
>>
>> How much time?  We're 14 years in, and Robin has been working on the
>> books for a few years I think.  Don't get me wrong - I appreciate the
>> work he is doing, but I'm not convinced it is a one-person project,
>> and it doesn't end when the past is caught up.
>>
>
> I'm fairly confident we can fix the current tax problems (in the end, its
> a problem we can solve with money, and we have some money.)
> I'm less convinced the non-profit yields any value over other
> alternatives, and so from an effort-basis I feel its necessary to wind down
> and replace
> with something else.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> > Once that happens, I think it is better to work with them to choose the
>> > future path since they own the Gentoo trademark, name, logo etc [1].
>> >
>>
>> Working with somebody isn't the same as deferring everything to them.
>>
>> The problem with leaving the fate of the Foundation entirely to the
>> Trustees is that there is a lot of selection bias at work.  Trustees
>> are a bunch of individuals selected for their interest in running a
>> non-profit (for the most part, simply volunteering for the post is
>> sufficient to be voted in).  Should we be surprised when they advocate
>> for continuing to run a non-profit?
>>
>
> I really don't think this is true. Its explicitly not true for me. I was a
> trustee because there were open slots and someone had to 'keep the lights
> on.'
> Other people who ran for the board have expressed similar sentiments. I am
> running again in the next election on a platform of dissolution (closing
> the foundation) which is again contrary to your argument. There is no point
> in continuing to run a non-profit that continues to nominally accrue risk
> with little or no upside. Eventually it will become so toxic that you will
> be unable to find anyone to run it (some may say this has already begun to
> happen.) This is evident partially by the board's reduction in numbers.
> Previously the board had 13 seats, then 7, then 5. I'm not superbly
> confident we will be able to fill 5 seats in the next election.
>
>
>> There is also no need to wait for the Foundation to fix everything
>> before working on a path forward.  Just as individuals can use their
>> own property to work on Gentoo-related projects, or donate their own
>> money to the Gentoo Foundation, so other entities can use their own
>> property to work on Gentoo-related projects, or donate their money to
>> the Foundation.
>>
>
> I think some of the conflict is a result of communication style (America v
> European) and also the internet-based communication methods we use to meet
> and converse with each other. I've often pitched something else (audio or
> video) but have never reached consensus. This isn't to discount the actual
> area of conflict (e.g. Finances) but how ones communicate ones ideas
> matters a fair bit.
>
> -A
>
>
>>
>> --
>> Rich
>>
>>
> Just to avoid confusion, Alex, are you talking about dissolving the
> organisation that is Gentoo Foundation, Inc. as a non-profit corporation,
> or completely eradicating the Board, Trustees and Officers such that the
> day-to-day organisational aspects of Gentoo either moves to the Council
> (*shudders*) or to another organisation entirely, with whatever baggage
> that ensues?!
>

I mean the New Mexico Non-profit corporation would be dissolved. If Gentoo
continued to want to own its trademarks and raise funds, those functions
would have to be moved elsewhere. This is typically where an umbrella (SPI,
SFLC, or similar) organization comes in handy; but I don't intend to be
prescriptive at this time in terms of what the next steps are. Obviously we
have to figure that out prior to dissolution (because the Articles of
dissolution specify where assets go.)

-A

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7400 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] William Hubbs council manifesto 2018-2019

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 2:15 PM M. J. Everitt <m.j.everitt@iee.org> wrote:
>
> completely eradicating the Board, Trustees and Officers such that the day-to-day
> organisational aspects of Gentoo either moves to the Council (*shudders*)

How is this different from making the Council subordinate to the
Trustees?  As far as I can tell they're equivalent, except the name of
the position is different.  You have one group that has the final say
on everything.  Anybody could run to be on that body.

Or are you more in favor of having two independent bodies with neither
being subordinate to the other?  That would be a different structure.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] William Hubbs council manifesto 2018-2019

[M. J. Everitt]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1946 bytes --]

On 17/06/18 19:24, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 2:15 PM M. J. Everitt <m.j.everitt@iee.org> wrote:
>> completely eradicating the Board, Trustees and Officers such that the day-to-day
>> organisational aspects of Gentoo either moves to the Council (*shudders*)
> How is this different from making the Council subordinate to the
> Trustees?  As far as I can tell they're equivalent, except the name of
> the position is different.  You have one group that has the final say
> on everything.  Anybody could run to be on that body.
>
> Or are you more in favor of having two independent bodies with neither
> being subordinate to the other?  That would be a different structure.
>
I think it broadly comes down to establishing what the mandate of
any/each of the "departments" of Gentoo do, and what (legal)
responsibilities they do/do not carry. There are already issues with
developers not being able to serve on certain aspects of an
organisation, and I think simply pushing those posts around won't solve
any of today's difficulties...

Alec has touched on another issue .. whilst a New Mexico state
organisation may have served drobbins in the past, is an equivalent
suitable for the Gentoo of today. Many of today's active developers
(with no intentional slant) are European based rather than US-based, and
perhaps it may be time to consider whether perhaps the eV organisation
might be a better 'base' for Gentoo as a distribution. OK, I get that
legal defences are stronger in the US, but if there aren't enough active
US participants, is this really a sustainable situation worth pursuing?
If so, how can we encourage more support in this area, if not, what are
our options (thinking as broadly as possible) .. to be as inclusive as
possible for the current "workforce" and taking into account the
domiciles of recently recruited developers, prospective devs aka. proxy
maintainers, etc...


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

Re: [gentoo-project] William Hubbs council manifesto 2018-2019

[Kristian Fiskerstrand]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 475 bytes --]

On 06/17/2018 03:42 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
> My impression is that we are just waiting for robbat2 to catch up the
> accounting/tax issues, so the foundation isn't in as big of a mess as
> has been spread. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.

https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/47d7d9c16e35c803375ce47551552ca3

-- 
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] William Hubbs council manifesto 2018-2019

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4697 bytes --]

On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 02:23:02PM -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 2:15 PM, M. J. Everitt <m.j.everitt@iee.org> wrote:
> 
> > On 17/06/18 19:07, Alec Warner wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 1:26 PM William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > My opinion though is we should give the trustees time to catch up
> >> >
> >>
> >> How much time?  We're 14 years in, and Robin has been working on the
> >> books for a few years I think.  Don't get me wrong - I appreciate the
> >> work he is doing, but I'm not convinced it is a one-person project,
> >> and it doesn't end when the past is caught up.
> >>
> >
> > I'm fairly confident we can fix the current tax problems (in the end, its
> > a problem we can solve with money, and we have some money.)
> > I'm less convinced the non-profit yields any value over other
> > alternatives, and so from an effort-basis I feel its necessary to wind down
> > and replace
> > with something else.

It sounds like this is the track to pursue. Vote forantarus as a trustee
and make it happen.

> >
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Once that happens, I think it is better to work with them to choose the
> >> > future path since they own the Gentoo trademark, name, logo etc [1].
> >> >
> >>
> >> Working with somebody isn't the same as deferring everything to them.

Sure, but when did I say defer everything to them?

> >>
> >> The problem with leaving the fate of the Foundation entirely to the
> >> Trustees is that there is a lot of selection bias at work.  Trustees
> >> are a bunch of individuals selected for their interest in running a
> >> non-profit (for the most part, simply volunteering for the post is
> >> sufficient to be voted in).  Should we be surprised when they advocate
> >> for continuing to run a non-profit?
> >>
> >
> > I really don't think this is true. Its explicitly not true for me. I was a
> > trustee because there were open slots and someone had to 'keep the lights
> > on.'
> > Other people who ran for the board have expressed similar sentiments. I am
> > running again in the next election on a platform of dissolution (closing
> > the foundation) which is again contrary to your argument. There is no point
> > in continuing to run a non-profit that continues to nominally accrue risk
> > with little or no upside. Eventually it will become so toxic that you will
> > be unable to find anyone to run it (some may say this has already begun to
> > happen.) This is evident partially by the board's reduction in numbers.
> > Previously the board had 13 seats, then 7, then 5. I'm not superbly
> > confident we will be able to fill 5 seats in the next election.

Rich, this argument makes no sense.

> >
> >
> >> There is also no need to wait for the Foundation to fix everything
> >> before working on a path forward.  Just as individuals can use their
> >> own property to work on Gentoo-related projects, or donate their own
> >> money to the Gentoo Foundation, so other entities can use their own
> >> property to work on Gentoo-related projects, or donate their money to
> >> the Foundation.
> >>
> >
> > I think some of the conflict is a result of communication style (America v
> > European) and also the internet-based communication methods we use to meet
> > and converse with each other. I've often pitched something else (audio or
> > video) but have never reached consensus. This isn't to discount the actual
> > area of conflict (e.g. Finances) but how ones communicate ones ideas
> > matters a fair bit.

This makes sense too.

> > -A
> >
> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> Rich
> >>
> >>
> > Just to avoid confusion, Alex, are you talking about dissolving the
> > organisation that is Gentoo Foundation, Inc. as a non-profit corporation,
> > or completely eradicating the Board, Trustees and Officers such that the
> > day-to-day organisational aspects of Gentoo either moves to the Council
> > (*shudders*) or to another organisation entirely, with whatever baggage
> > that ensues?!
> >
> 
> I mean the New Mexico Non-profit corporation would be dissolved. If Gentoo
> continued to want to own its trademarks and raise funds, those functions
> would have to be moved elsewhere. This is typically where an umbrella (SPI,
> SFLC, or similar) organization comes in handy; but I don't intend to be
> prescriptive at this time in terms of what the next steps are. Obviously we
> have to figure that out prior to dissolution (because the Articles of
> dissolution specify where assets go.)
> 
> -A

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

Re: [gentoo-project] William Hubbs council manifesto 2018-2019

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 4:34 PM William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 02:23:02PM -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 2:15 PM, M. J. Everitt <m.j.everitt@iee.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On 17/06/18 19:07, Alec Warner wrote:
> > >
> > > I really don't think this is true. Its explicitly not true for me. I was a
> > > trustee because there were open slots and someone had to 'keep the lights
> > > on.'
> > > Other people who ran for the board have expressed similar sentiments. I am
> > > running again in the next election on a platform of dissolution (closing
> > > the foundation) which is again contrary to your argument. There is no point
> > > in continuing to run a non-profit that continues to nominally accrue risk
> > > with little or no upside. Eventually it will become so toxic that you will
> > > be unable to find anyone to run it (some may say this has already begun to
> > > happen.) This is evident partially by the board's reduction in numbers.
> > > Previously the board had 13 seats, then 7, then 5. I'm not superbly
> > > confident we will be able to fill 5 seats in the next election.
>
> Rich, this argument makes no sense.

I didn't write that.  I suspect that somewhere along the way somebody
messed up their quoting.  That said, I largely agree with the point
being made (I believe by Alec).

(And to be fair, you did as well in your reply by not trimming the
rest of the email below your last comment...)  :)

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] William Hubbs council manifesto 2018-2019

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1937 bytes --]

On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 07:48:08PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 4:34 PM William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 02:23:02PM -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 2:15 PM, M. J. Everitt <m.j.everitt@iee.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 17/06/18 19:07, Alec Warner wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I really don't think this is true. Its explicitly not true for me. I was a
> > > > trustee because there were open slots and someone had to 'keep the lights
> > > > on.'
> > > > Other people who ran for the board have expressed similar sentiments. I am
> > > > running again in the next election on a platform of dissolution (closing
> > > > the foundation) which is again contrary to your argument. There is no point
> > > > in continuing to run a non-profit that continues to nominally accrue risk
> > > > with little or no upside. Eventually it will become so toxic that you will
> > > > be unable to find anyone to run it (some may say this has already begun to
> > > > happen.) This is evident partially by the board's reduction in numbers.
> > > > Previously the board had 13 seats, then 7, then 5. I'm not superbly
> > > > confident we will be able to fill 5 seats in the next election.
> >
> > Rich, this argument makes no sense.
> 
> I didn't write that.  I suspect that somewhere along the way somebody
> messed up their quoting.  That said, I largely agree with the point
> being made (I believe by Alec).
> 
> (And to be fair, you did as well in your reply by not trimming the
> rest of the email below your last comment...)  :)

Yes, I basically agree with Alec.

What I meant to say makes no sense was your commentary above, which got
deleted from this some how, about selection bias. That seems to be true
for any elected position -- you have people running for the position who
are interested in having the job. :-)

William

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

Re: [gentoo-project] William Hubbs council manifesto 2018-2019

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 11:33 AM William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> What I meant to say makes no sense was your commentary above, which got
> deleted from this some how, about selection bias. That seems to be true
> for any elected position -- you have people running for the position who
> are interested in having the job. :-)
>

I don't see the disagreement here.  You seem to agree there is
selection bias, and are just extending it even further.

I agree with that.  Asking the Council whether we need a Council makes
as much sense as asking the Trustees whether we need a Foundation.

Obviously we are all smart people, and to an extent we can recognize
our biases and compensate.  I'm not saying they shouldn't have a say.
I'm just saying that in the end any proposals on ultimate direction
should probably go back to the voters, and ideally with more than just
a yes/no option (which is terrible for expressing mandate, and can
lead to distortions due to a lack of nuance - just look at Brexit).

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] William Hubbs council manifesto 2018-2019

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 999 bytes --]

On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 11:42:38AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 11:33 AM William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > What I meant to say makes no sense was your commentary above, which got
> > deleted from this some how, about selection bias. That seems to be true
> > for any elected position -- you have people running for the position who
> > are interested in having the job. :-)
> >
> 
> I don't see the disagreement here.  You seem to agree there is
> selection bias, and are just extending it even further.
> 
> I agree with that.  Asking the Council whether we need a Council makes
> as much sense as asking the Trustees whether we need a Foundation.

But what you are saying is based on the idea that I said we should defer
this decision to the trustees, which I never said.

All I'm advocating for is a change of tone in the dialog. It seems to be
mostly demands and accusations, and that is what I would like to see
changed.

William

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

Re: [gentoo-project] William Hubbs council manifesto 2018-2019

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 12:09 PM William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> But what you are saying is based on the idea that I said we should defer
> this decision to the trustees, which I never said.
>
> All I'm advocating for is a change of tone in the dialog. It seems to be
> mostly demands and accusations, and that is what I would like to see
> changed.

Well, if this is your position then I think we're on the same page,
probably along with just about everybody else.

-- 
Rich