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 4126C1382C5 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 20:39:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5B63BE086E; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 20:39:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-vk0-x22c.google.com (mail-vk0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12E47E086A for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 20:39:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vk0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id b16so143606vka.5 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 13:39:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=scriptkitty-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to; bh=nYFi2AuNykMBCO9a0+ycTghgcKR0DiSY+558LZxc/KI=; b=nmAjBPalBl+X1lJ6knj96XOb4iW89tc0jRQYaiVcnNPJIuBmVUrTZ5Pi3fE7wBbX08 7uxveOky/znhhaVGThQR92mXi8e4WwaKMP1Mf01nUNhvc0GT7/VskIXUWTKP1Cfhx3g9 H8trRZiB6I/LNda2bhYbndYWoNEjuyZNuo8/i14gSPjFyQdquLdsrrdEDYOU8PbBi7LG LbyKVYO3QPfMbfxW0zaM28Xg9C190wVqmf+CzYt42gnT9xcVw1h6lJl1+5WUq+OPWsK0 CBiXxE38x8XvYeaHDZS3gaZTYWVq1xxT1tnLV2JMF5wETjI253+0hU12W56St13KKJVb mBaw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to; bh=nYFi2AuNykMBCO9a0+ycTghgcKR0DiSY+558LZxc/KI=; b=N4AgddkNuU1i0z6JwUBDcYkPVfcU4aPZ7bpfZhYZDgj+JOqFOfh5g7owMZyoZIGJIr gamdCVuiSu1tcKNhMGLCa27QNNsjkvN76SN/XwT9p6SXe+fmYe/h4DRlbVBCTRfsFraC hK41D7XC84pYaCWmOTSLN7rrC37tGGXWCVbyh3l0uHgRuIWvKvCL+ioTpydePF1XLJ/9 VV4OON0jdK93CB0h9UUebfAvwvU3SAJYNRocxA6fAP4ic8iEfGeKjVyKzN3A1ejtKffR KSir6qSmnumSf/WOXX5ajY/YGzZWLoUvyfm8l/ryNGMth5K6wP2tI+7YM4XA23wj2tpQ xrJg== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7EKtG9Q2ZkLfEq+/zqgdWtU6JHpTLtJ9Z9i9qmCnENz/L0WTQne WYp5JKpxnlfuR1dkYzCsyYox0q3fg5MBOD+czOLd3suK X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx49nl012kxQEnDFtaxgS06RLVr6C9yPuiJNFbD9h2f+Ztt8RkENMzPSDs54JgGO6fgLHMC320w1Ai6psT/jCtRA= X-Received: by 10.31.103.69 with SMTP id m5mr622722vki.160.1522183147301; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 13:39:07 -0700 (PDT) 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 Sender: antarus@scriptkitty.com Received: by 10.176.85.80 with HTTP; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 13:39:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [2620:0:1003:512:ed1b:c769:325d:55] In-Reply-To: References: <88d042a2-a68b-ec2b-ee07-a9e7a0fe9223@gentoo.org> <1522138764.2317.11.camel@gentoo.org> From: Alec Warner Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 16:39:06 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 4xr_CxRLhruPZqQ1JHwK0xghim0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Social Contract clean-up To: gentoo-project Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0825a378c7446205686ae18a" X-Archives-Salt: 76db272f-01ec-45da-9364-939ad651ff43 X-Archives-Hash: a663869a8b75e1d4b367923cbadbdac1 --089e0825a378c7446205686ae18a Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 4:26 PM, Daniel Robbins wrote: > On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 1:40 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 2:38 PM, Daniel Robbins >> wrote: >> > >> > No, you are misrepresenting the actual authority of Trustees. They have >> > actual, real authority over the project as opposed to imagined authority >> > that you seem to appeal to. >> > >> >> They have the ability to destroy the Foundation, certainly, and cause >> a lot of fuss. However, the Trustees are generally reasonable so I >> don't expect this to happen. > > > My point is this -- the organizational structure that exists, exists. It's > for everyone's benefit if those who do not like the organizational > structure leave the project and do their own thing, under a different > organizational structure, and those that do stay, do support it as it is > intended to function so that it can be the best it can be. > I appreciate this sentence, I feel like its the most honest sentence you've sent thus far. > > Anyone who really isn't behind the trustees and the NFP system should > leave, because that is the system we have and will continue to have. It is > not appropriate to make ominous predictions of what might happen if the > trustees actually exercise the authority they have absolutely every legal > right -- and frankly, obligation to the members -- to do. > > I can tell you right now that these ominous predictions give the > impression that certain developers are co-opting the normal functioning of > the trustees through threats and intimidation via FUD, and that is not OK. > It's politics and power games. So I would encourage you to not participate > in that. > In running a business, sometimes decisions must be made when we don't know the outcome. No one *knows* what will happen (we are not mind readers.) However, when making risky decisions, its important to consider the ramifications of said decisions. Sure, the outcome is not known; but its *likely* that, based on conversations I have had with individual contributors, that a significant number of contributors would leave if this happened. Saying we should not take that into consideration while making decisions is not a reasonable thing to ask; IMHO. Its not "blackmail" or "co-opting". Its a risky choice to make, and I haven't seen a board even come *close* to making it. I think the trustees in general value the "community" and "contributors" more than they value other things; I suspect these are different to your values (or you think that most people would stay after a re-org, and you could be right!) > > I am not close to current trustees or council, and I have no "side" in > this battle other than fighting for the proper functioning of Gentoo. I am > just calling things as I see them. > If folks wanted change they can: 1) Join the foundation. 2) Hold a meeting of the members. 3) Pass whatever resolutions or bylaws they wanted by full member vote. OR 1) Join the foundation. 2) Nominate a trustee they trust to drive their agenda (including themselves) 3) Vote for trustees on the board. I haven't see anyone do either (or even try) precisely because I don't think its the foundation that holds all the cards here. The value isn't in "Gentoo" the name, the value is in the contributors and the work they do. This is *why* the council holds all the power (being the elected representatives of all the contributors) and not the Foundation (regardless of actual law.) -A > -Daniel > --089e0825a378c7446205686ae18a Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On T= ue, Mar 27, 2018 at 4:26 PM, Daniel Robbins <drobbins@funtoo.org&g= t; wrote:
On Tue, Mar= 27, 2018 at 1:40 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:<= br>
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 2:38 PM, Da= niel Robbins <d= robbins@funtoo.org> wrote:
>
> No, you are misrepresenting the actual authority of Trustees. They hav= e
> actual, real authority over the project as opposed to imagined authori= ty
> that you seem to appeal to.
>

They have the ability to destroy the Foundation, certainly, and caus= e
a lot of fuss.=C2=A0 However, the Trustees are generally reasonable so I don't expect this to happen.

My = point is this -- the organizational structure that exists, exists. It's= for everyone's benefit if those who do not like the organizational str= ucture leave the project and do their own thing, under a different organiza= tional structure, and those that do stay, do support it as it is intended t= o function so that it can be the best it can be.

I appreciate this sentence, I feel like i= ts the most honest sentence you've sent thus far.
=C2=A0

Anyone who reall= y isn't behind the trustees and the NFP system should leave, because th= at is the system we have and will continue to have. It is not appropriate t= o make ominous predictions of what might happen if the trustees actually ex= ercise the authority they have absolutely every legal right -- and frankly,= obligation to the members -- to do.

I can tell you right now that = these ominous predictions give the impression that certain developers are c= o-opting the normal functioning of the trustees through threats and intimid= ation via FUD, and that is not OK. It's politics and power games. So I = would encourage you to not participate in that.

In running a = business, sometimes decisions must be made when we don't know the outco= me. No one *knows* what will happen (we are not mind readers.) However, whe= n making risky decisions, its important to consider the ramifications of sa= id decisions. Sure, the outcome is not known; but its *likely* that, based = on conversations I have had with individual contributors, that a significan= t number of contributors would leave if this happened. Saying we should not= take that into consideration while making decisions is not a reasonable th= ing to ask; IMHO. Its not "blackmail" or "co-opting". I= ts a risky choice to make, and I haven't seen a board even come *close*= to making it.

I think the trustees in general= value the "community" and "contributors" more than the= y value other things; I suspect these are different to your values (or you = think that most people would stay after a re-org, and you could be right!)<= /div>
=C2=A0
<= div class=3D"gmail_extra">

I = am not close to current trustees or council, and I have no "side"= in this battle other than fighting for the proper functioning of Gentoo. I= am just calling things as I see them.
=

If folks wanted change they can:

1) Join the foundation.
2) Hold a meeting of the members.
3) Pass whatever resolutions or bylaws they wanted by full member vot= e.

OR

1) Join the foundat= ion.
2) Nominate a trustee they trust to drive their agenda (incl= uding themselves)
3) Vote for trustees on the board.
= =C2=A0
I haven't see anyone do either (or even try) preci= sely because I don't think its the foundation that holds all the cards = here. The value isn't in "Gentoo" the name, the value is in t= he contributors and the work they do. This is *why* the council holds all t= he power (being the elected representatives of all the contributors) and no= t the Foundation (regardless of actual law.)

-A


-Daniel

--089e0825a378c7446205686ae18a--