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 9F271139085 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 13:48:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 41BFAE1007; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 13:00:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qk0-x22e.google.com (mail-qk0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22e]) (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 0B188E1006 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 13:00:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qk0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id a20so208257502qkc.1 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 05:00:45 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=79SvCwDYJPst5aRK+jYApLXt12D4BrxuPCyqG8A7CFY=; b=DIOidGZPDpMwMafNXNurWjcsv2ffpP8tOF/qhDYwSzj4d8nbSN/4Rs70/xktvdnJPY wceaOZTEfrmRxyp0wp9o12kaApCMP930uPOjEmHSg3x6OdivAs34Zi4JJ9eZmp88Ysqe aXNoVJgaf1Iehl2qXsuGIt0bebv6LfTVXZL/elPZNOSjkTshnkWTL94lkirkg15nLyi/ Nj4KLDcVODfjFel8RATXPzMSkYB6aKO/kmpVcO7hd2cpgCM1nzQJzLebG6mtr22XRVpN mRTjiCPz+N7A2WtmROaJMGf32coWSVZPLJw8Wj5fMX8WeJydykjJveBqrqjaU8KmaMGl 5zoA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=79SvCwDYJPst5aRK+jYApLXt12D4BrxuPCyqG8A7CFY=; b=W8GaRrMk+IYIndaPvgEnvxM22Jy8TAF6+/bKOOYzwI3EURXC9dCIfuneNJIOq8aj+7 Rqy/BReQ4IB77dBl/qEAzP34NzCM6lLDP7ZR/rB3DUeAx+iUxPdCbGeQbtEs4FX90VCG HL5otMjusejAyevJvDLf3CmMCJJDLuhhrrtzmMMzI5059nBBSuarMDMPA9itqOaWt614 DYy+FoC2ycNIGQnDbzxrBiLq0Mkj8y8EIbgfeFPNfj5u6D2SVF5Nq2c8uSDI8e7pzeVF z3nkE4vyXyr2FktSnCVVMmhl4kqC77pCX8IGnSntPsKFBL0N9FrZN0wk6Hk7Dxq0q4b2 +zMg== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXKGbuWa+MrrmUaUKIYNW38YpMEtNcGYyY6JVg5fkIz66ZOefeQSr2TfFwf5HGOdtX8B0VgnTfTJcMdmLg== X-Received: by 10.55.99.85 with SMTP id x82mr7366637qkb.147.1484139639115; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 05:00:39 -0800 (PST) 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 Received: by 10.140.98.140 with HTTP; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 04:59:58 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87r349iy3d.fsf@kestrel.kyomu.43-1.org> References: <35d4687b-4cbd-cf79-254c-c7476c06bb3a@gentoo.org> <22645.58328.521107.564927@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <1d601c44-e136-382d-54f4-27d3437dfcc5@gentoo.org> <87r349iy3d.fsf@kestrel.kyomu.43-1.org> From: Raymond Jennings Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 04:59:58 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Merging Trustees and Council / Developers and Foundation - 1.0 reply To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11482c36fc98da0545d12f00 X-Archives-Salt: 31166ef8-d57b-4a3a-8c94-409d82c61d13 X-Archives-Hash: aa0bf2b461af43b5e6853c62416f4a3a --001a11482c36fc98da0545d12f00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 4:24 AM, Matthias Maier wrote: > Hi Matthew, > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017, at 04:59 CST, Matthew Thode < > prometheanfire@gentoo.org> wrote: > > [...] > > > I think I'm leaning towards > > the 'board' being what is currently trustees + hr(comrel) + pr + infra. > > Under that would go what is currently being done by council. > > I am a bit astonished by the sudden proposal to centralize more power > under the Gentoo Foundation, A US based non-profit. As was laid out by > ulm and dilfridge, there are a number of severe legal uncertainties for > non-US citizens participating in such a construct and frankly speaking I > do not see the need for it. On the contrary. > > - It is my firm believe that it is *vital* for an open source project > that essentially consists of volunteers from around the world to be > organized as a community and not as a legal entity under some > jurisdiction. > > Therefore the status quo makes a lot of sense: > > - the developer community organizing itself > > - the Foundation taking care of legal matters (finances and > infrastructure) that need a legal entity in some jurisdiction > > The vital bit is the fact that the developer community is > self-organizing and this includes the power to decide who is a member > and who is not. > > - Now, all you essentially propose is to shift the "hr(comrel)" part to > the Foundation - all the rest (trustees, pr, and infra) it is already > in charge of. > > So, why is it important to give the Foundation the power to decide > over the "hr" part of the Gentoo developer community? > > If it is just about comrel, well, we can easily reorganize comrel > into an elected body (by the Gentoo developer community) similarly to > the council. > > I do not see any necessity for the Foundation to be involved in the > self organization of the developer community. On the contrary, there > is the danger that a strengthened Foundation will severely undermine > the authority of our developer community procedures, with > > - trustees being able to overrule the council on technical and > community decisions > > - trustees being able to overrule our (developer) recruiting > process > > So, as a trustee (and the one proposing this move), why do you want to > have this power presiding over the developer community? > > Best, > Matthias > What concerns me is that this post seems to indicate a degree of concern that the foundation might not have the best interests of the gentoo developer community at heart. Isn't it the foundation's job to advance gentoo's cause? And wouldn't that make the developer community a ward of sorts that it's the foundation's job to protect? I would like to ask why the foundation having power over HR issues is even a problem to begin with. I will say that I think better communication is a good thing between the foundation and the developer community, perhaps monthly meetings between trustees and council would be good. But I would be very surprised to see them as enemies of the developers in any sense of the word. I find it alarming that foundation trustees are even being hinted as a potential enemy. The solution is better communication, not a standoff that would provoke a civil war of sorts. The details may work out later but seriously...why exactly would we be afraid of the trustees having this power? I ask this of everyone. What would motivate the trustees to use this or any other power in a manner detrimental to Gentoo? This isn't a rhetorical question either. If the trustees cannot truly be trusted, then I think that would raise a serious set of questions of its own. --001a11482c36fc98da0545d12f00 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On W= ed, Jan 11, 2017 at 4:24 AM, Matthias Maier <tamiko@gentoo.org> wrote:
Hi Matthew,

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017, at 04:59 CST, Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@gentoo.org> wrote:

[...]

> I think I'm leaning towards
> the 'board' being what is currently trustees + hr(comrel) + pr= + infra.
> Under that would go what is currently being done by council.

I am a bit astonished by the sudden proposal to centralize more powe= r
under the Gentoo Foundation, A US based non-profit. As was laid out by
ulm and dilfridge, there are a number of severe legal uncertainties for
non-US citizens participating in such a construct and frankly speaking I do not see the need for it. On the contrary.

=C2=A0- It is my firm believe that it is *vital* for an open source project=
=C2=A0 =C2=A0that essentially consists of volunteers from around the world = to be
=C2=A0 =C2=A0organized as a community and not as a legal entity under some<= br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0jurisdiction.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0Therefore the status quo makes a lot of sense:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0- the developer community organizing itself

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0- the Foundation taking care of legal matters (finances= and
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0infrastructure) that need a legal entity in some= jurisdiction

=C2=A0 =C2=A0The vital bit is the fact that the developer community is
=C2=A0 =C2=A0self-organizing and this includes the power to decide who is a= member
=C2=A0 =C2=A0and who is not.

=C2=A0- Now, all you essentially propose is to shift the "hr(comrel)&q= uot; part to
=C2=A0 =C2=A0the Foundation - all the rest (trustees, pr, and infra) it is = already
=C2=A0 =C2=A0in charge of.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0So, why is it important to give the Foundation the power to de= cide
=C2=A0 =C2=A0over the "hr" part of the Gentoo developer community= ?

=C2=A0 =C2=A0If it is just about comrel, well, we can easily reorganize com= rel
=C2=A0 =C2=A0into an elected body (by the Gentoo developer community) simil= arly to
=C2=A0 =C2=A0the council.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0I do not see any necessity for the Foundation to be involved i= n the
=C2=A0 =C2=A0self organization of the developer community. On the contrary,= there
=C2=A0 =C2=A0is the danger that a strengthened Foundation will severely und= ermine
=C2=A0 =C2=A0the authority of our developer community procedures, with

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0- trustees being able to overrule the council on techni= cal and
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0community decisions

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0- trustees being able to overrule our (developer) recru= iting
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0process

So, as=C2=A0 a trustee (and the one proposing this move), why do you want t= o
have this power presiding over the developer community?

Best,
Matthias

What concerns me is= that this post seems to indicate a degree of concern that the foundation m= ight not have the best interests of the gentoo developer community at heart= .

Isn&= #39;t it the foundation's job to advance gentoo's cause?=C2=A0 And = wouldn't that make the developer community a ward of sorts that it'= s the foundation's job to protect?

=
I would like to ask why the foundation hav= ing power over HR issues is even a problem to begin with.

I will say that I thi= nk better communication is a good thing between the foundation and the deve= loper community, perhaps monthly meetings between trustees and council woul= d be good.

But I would be very surprise= d to see them as enemies of the developers in any sense of the word.
<= div class=3D"gmail_extra">
I find it al= arming that foundation trustees are even being hinted as a potential enemy.= =C2=A0 The solution is better communication, not a standoff that would prov= oke a civil war of sorts.

The details may work out later but seriously...why exac= tly would we be afraid of the trustees having this power?

I ask this of everyon= e.=C2=A0 What would motivate the trustees to use this or any other power in= a manner detrimental to Gentoo?

=
This isn't a rhetorical question either.=C2= =A0 If the trustees cannot truly be trusted, then I think that would raise = a serious set of questions of its own.
--001a11482c36fc98da0545d12f00--