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 003E0139085 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 19:18:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 487562340D3; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 19:18:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qk0-x231.google.com (mail-qk0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::231]) (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 083512340D1 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 19:18:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qk0-x231.google.com with SMTP id a20so220328924qkc.1 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 11:18:11 -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 :cc; bh=1MAksXcP50/E4ELiDbUXIUy8PfoKaoDKDBlfwyB0RlI=; b=TAz5h+cPsIm1UylWXT5LO4lQrGPjRl04n/GQhA4x03VBo2JeCzZ+c8wINlXQHWvzkn cqNId6uS0iPN1QOX8dlYcm9J86nr3UfGpvAtE2MtgKzZc5ri8ORkKySpLb/3im0B92sH 8kTKBG3QaiZjdRUAMXK8PpA4WE952JTpAcKbnKRsWyObCIew31he1IRi5QDxE2kOfxgc 5gAgXzsU3BkQ7cVJX0W4P1levR8FXJU7fl+/RHqfe00En9sf8MKFZA0SJZkkZOUj+Cpj s1Gcd+ChYSPmgd9lDXaq2Cf9J9Li7ZBwb8GG2zH6EuLEtBpx5pypGcvm84WJk+tnKyWt SrzA== 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:cc; bh=1MAksXcP50/E4ELiDbUXIUy8PfoKaoDKDBlfwyB0RlI=; b=KnF32EhBXyr/FeMZ1j0bZgVtlouXjfMR7THeqZZ5lSE9xysMVdB24LKFc80/MCT8cf w8GSYlz/IN4pdpaGrhL/2BDVoYsaNoSi2Xtg0H8U6dDc47Z4lNO0gwgm8/RO49QS6bxY PzQHEdrZptaXFUhuMG//qQaWgvWTLV3zMOVms5NhTn6WGye2fXVH7BAPkQwf5ngH8xct IOuZ5/8wml6V+E534f9Aan0EuPvhy5dgHPMD/3NTQ4pdFvI0Bfb0Wkemh4sFsOBGx8KF BRxbl77QTN5OytfltOgIRK2kSWB+lI5SZro6V2rKlEizalO+4SNW1IKUsx193C/eVf+h DyCg== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXKAGZ5a+6h0MJV9pMqRG2GfjkNcEGlBlObBMNpw3ieF1NZnNRC0mJKLL3I/BbT+vjkgrqKsZWFl3fSHVA== X-Received: by 10.55.10.131 with SMTP id 125mr11034784qkk.257.1484162290316; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 11:18:10 -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 11:17:29 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20170111195519.03d62dfc.mgorny@gentoo.org> References: <35d4687b-4cbd-cf79-254c-c7476c06bb3a@gentoo.org> <20170111175050.12e5887d.mgorny@gentoo.org> <20170111195519.03d62dfc.mgorny@gentoo.org> From: Raymond Jennings Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 11:17:29 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Merging Trustees and Council / Developers and Foundation - 1.0 reply To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Cc: "William L. Thomson Jr." Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114c8f4e1a7b4c0545d67637 X-Archives-Salt: 067fa841-4652-4ff8-9d41-780a25575819 X-Archives-Hash: 9a44e700f98681429dea8f1ae5d3ec90 --001a114c8f4e1a7b4c0545d67637 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: > On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 12:28:35 -0500 > "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote: > > > On Wednesday, January 11, 2017 5:50:50 PM EST Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wr= ote: > > > > > > And how is that not discriminating? On one hand you talk of giving > > > people outside the project the means to influence it, yet you > > > explicitly take away the right of voting for people outside > > > the Foundation (even though they are in the project, after all). > > > > If as a Developer you opt out of Foundation membership. You cannot tur= n > > around and claim discrimination to something you chose to leave. > > What if I *have* to opt out because of my employment or local law? For > example, if my contract forbids me from being *enlisted* > in corporations working in the IT sector? > And how exactly would it be the responsibility of anyone but the employee in question? I don't think the foundation is legally required to be super-preemptive about stuff like this, but ask a lawyer. It does puzzle me why it would be any business of the foundation to deal with your contract unless the foundation deliberately interfered. It's easy to argue whether things can or can't happen but will you > defend me against a lawsuit from my employer? Will the Foundation > guarantee that? As I see it, keeping a low profile should be > developer's right. > This would require indemnification of the developer by the foundation. > > I'm not sure if you've seen that but Gentoo developers lately have been > > > harassed by multiple users who had no to minor contributions yet > > > believed they are the best people to tell developers how do their wor= k. > > > > Which is why they would be better served to voice their opinions to > Trustees. > > Let Trustees approach council if they feel it is best. If Council feels > the > > need they could consult Developers. > > > > > Accepting input is one thing. Letting people who do not do current > > > Gentoo work (=3D aren't affected by the decisions directly) decide on > > > what others should do is another. > > > > Just because Foundation, Council, and Gentoo project want to do > something. > > Does not mean YOU have to do that. At the same time a project should no= t > be > > just left up to those scratching itches. If by some means all that > individual > > itch scratching leads to something collectively great. > > > > At some point has to be some big picture to how all the stuff fits > together. > > Are we a organized team/project or just individuals doing what ever? > > We are individuals who can get along eventually and make a pretty > decent distro as a result. For some time already. > > > > How can a user who has barely any contact with Gentoo developers be > > > able to choose good candidates for the Council? > > > > Users would never have ability to vote for Council. Foundation members > can > > only vote for Foundation stuff. Which Council voting would be left to > > Developers. > > ...which would be meaningless with Trustees having the power to > override pretty much everything for no apparent reason. > > > > I don't see how either of those arguments are related to me being > > > a Foundation member or not. After all, the Foundation protects *all* > > > Gentoo work, independently of whether a developer doing it is a membe= r > > > or not, doesn't it? > > > > So the Foundation and Trustees should be legally liable for all your > actions > > without any influence? > > > > You can do what ever you want and we will be liable for your actions. D= o > you > > want to be liable for all my actions. That is asking way to much of a > Trustee > > IMHO. Be 100% responsible and legally liable with no influence. > > I'm afraid we don't understand each other. I still don't see how > liability is different for person who is a *member* of the Foundation, > and for a developer who is not a member of the Foundation. > > > > They can get recruited. It's not hard. Getting a developer status > > > (without commit access) mostly involves proving that you're accustome= d > > > to organization matters of how Gentoo operates. > > > > There are many in the community who either cannot or do not want to be > come > > Developers in any capacity. Just the same as those who do not want to b= e > > members in the Foundation. > > So why are the people who don't want to be developers privileged over > people who don't want to be Foundation members? > > > > I believe the legal liability concern is a rare enough issue for > > > Trustees to be involved rather when that is a possible case rather th= an > > > having them approve every step of everyone else. > > > > True, but just because no one has sued does not mean the project should > not be > > aware of such liabilities and seek to protect itself from law suit. > > You can protect Gentoo from liability without having total control over > every aspect of Gentoo. There's a difference between power to make > decisions that prevent liability and power to make any decisions. > > > > It's not perfect but I believe Gentoo could prevail. Maybe it'd even = be > > > beneficial long-term, since it would let the developers actually doin= g > > > a lot of work to split from those who mostly talk. Pretty much gettin= g > > > Gentoo back to the roots, as Daniel Robbins seen it. > > > > That is not how Daniel sees it, and does not agree with such separation= . > That > > is what people need to understand. What Gentoo has become it was not > intended > > to be, nor did it start that way. > > http://www.funtoo.org/Making_the_Distribution,_Part_1 > > And here we are, arguing that Gentoo should be lead by people 'who > aren't writing any code (nor do they have any intention to). Instead they > spend their time talking about more important things. You know, those > managerial issues'. > > -- > Best regards, > Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny > > --001a114c8f4e1a7b4c0545d67637 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On W= ed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny <= mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 1= 2:28:35 -0500
"William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, January 11, 2017 5:50:50 PM EST = Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote:
> >
> > And how is that not discriminating? On one hand you talk of givin= g
> > people outside the project the means to influence it, yet you
> > explicitly take away the right of voting for people outside
> > the Foundation (even though they are in the project, after all).<= br> >
> If as a Developer=C2=A0 you opt out of Foundation membership. You cann= ot turn
> around and claim discrimination to something you chose to leave.

What if I *have* to opt out because of my employment or local law? F= or
example, if my contract forbids me from being *enlisted*
in corporations working in the IT sector?

And how exactly would it be the responsibility of anyone but the employe= e in question?

I don't think the foundation is= legally required to be super-preemptive about stuff like this, but ask a l= awyer.

It does puzzle me why it would be any busin= ess of the foundation to deal with your contract unless the foundation deli= berately interfered.

It&= #39;s easy to argue whether things can or can't happen but will you
defend me against a lawsuit from my employer? Will the Foundation
guarantee that? As I see it, keeping a low profile should be
developer's right.

This would requi= re indemnification of the developer by the foundation.

=
> > I'm not sure = if you've seen that but Gentoo developers lately have been
> > harassed by multiple users who had no to minor contributions yet<= br> > > believed they are the best people to tell developers how do their= work.
>
> Which is why they would be better served to voice their opinions to Tr= ustees.
> Let Trustees approach council if they feel it is best. If Council feel= s the
> need they could consult Developers.
>
> > Accepting input is one thing. Letting people who do not do curren= t
> > Gentoo work (=3D aren't affected by the decisions directly) d= ecide on
> > what others should do is another.
>
> Just because Foundation, Council, and Gentoo project want to do someth= ing.
> Does not mean YOU have to do that. At the same time a project should n= ot be
> just left up to those scratching itches. If by some means all that ind= ividual
> itch scratching leads to something collectively great.
>
> At some point has to be some big picture to how all the stuff fits tog= ether.
> Are we a organized team/project or just individuals doing what ever?
We are individuals who can get along eventually and make a pretty decent distro as a result. For some time already.

> > How can a user who has barely any contact with Gentoo developers = be
> > able to choose good candidates for the Council?
>
> Users would never have ability to vote for Council. Foundation members= can
> only vote for Foundation stuff. Which Council voting would be left to<= br> > Developers.

...which would be meaningless with Trustees having the power to
override pretty much everything for no apparent reason.

> > I don't see how either of those arguments are related to me b= eing
> > a Foundation member or not. After all, the Foundation protects *a= ll*
> > Gentoo work, independently of whether a developer doing it is a m= ember
> > or not, doesn't it?
>
> So the Foundation and Trustees should be legally liable for all your a= ctions
> without any influence?
>
> You can do what ever you want and we will be liable for your actions. = Do you
> want to be liable for all my actions. That is asking way to much of a = Trustee
> IMHO. Be 100% responsible and legally liable with no influence.

I'm afraid we don't understand each other. I still don't= see how
liability is different for person who is a *member* of the Foundation,
and for a developer who is not a member of the Foundation.

> > They can get recruited. It's not hard. Getting a developer st= atus
> > (without commit access) mostly involves proving that you're a= ccustomed
> > to organization matters of how Gentoo operates.
>
> There are many in the community who either cannot or do not want to be= come
> Developers in any capacity. Just the same as those who do not want to = be
> members in the Foundation.

So why are the people who don't want to be developers privileged= over
people who don't want to be Foundation members?

> > I believe the legal liability concern is a rare enough issue for<= br> > > Trustees to be involved rather when that is a possible case rathe= r than
> > having them approve every step of everyone else.
>
> True, but just because no one has sued does not mean the project shoul= d not be
> aware of such liabilities and seek to protect itself from law suit.
You can protect Gentoo from liability without having total control o= ver
every aspect of Gentoo. There's a difference between power to make
decisions that prevent liability and power to make any decisions.

> > It's not perfect but I believe Gentoo could prevail. Maybe it= 'd even be
> > beneficial long-term, since it would let the developers actually = doing
> > a lot of work to split from those who mostly talk. Pretty much ge= tting
> > Gentoo back to the roots, as Daniel Robbins seen it.
>
> That is not how Daniel sees it, and does not agree with such separatio= n. That
> is what people need to understand. What Gentoo has become it was not i= ntended
> to be, nor did it start that way.

http://www.funtoo.org/Making_the_Di= stribution,_Part_1

And here we are, arguing that Gentoo should be lead by people 'who
aren't writing any code (nor do they have any intention to). Instead th= ey
spend their time talking about more important things. You know, those
managerial issues'.

--
Best regards,
Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>

--001a114c8f4e1a7b4c0545d67637--