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 A77C8139085 for ; Sun, 15 Jan 2017 01:17:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D87932241A8; Sun, 15 Jan 2017 01:17:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qk0-x243.google.com (mail-qk0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::243]) (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 A67BE2241A7 for ; Sun, 15 Jan 2017 01:17:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qk0-x243.google.com with SMTP id u25so12112066qki.2 for ; Sat, 14 Jan 2017 17:17:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to; bh=YXasAGc+5vZePpou0eUVJSQ1bPyq5htNhf/n6LoXgnk=; b=TP+PHO/oEATgjLqK74Oy0f6LWyqW76f98TXopw2SeMjthxli76Gz0f7B3s9pNg1XPT shqvI4toPTWfmcKHeqCFVRiRwQRJ+SpRdbsrZF1d1VHnLY20Po5VE6lkriv1HIV9rNbj IKMCeQZBqy6JG9w77MqcQ7UM7jo7Z1sR1Jm8a26Qv9x1ByIOHauVaFFImhMGgLwHQX9q H5AOTzMXiCHsK5JUY3bTuA4x+8vXA6VfIIJ0S6JDvaPOjx4NtLUepe7xrEkzyILu3Lnf lfo7U+hWp29dKtZqvB/YORqMowjWk0sil0y+hQ6lEQAVtV3nq+lzshzkZkG7pT63oMpZ V7xQ== 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=YXasAGc+5vZePpou0eUVJSQ1bPyq5htNhf/n6LoXgnk=; b=iwCAhoZ3UGnY6todQ9CngtvnSxWQtWBD2146JlnXioVGVf/pnc5pXvbABnX1QJsoHV 3a84cqcVhk5nguty12Tiks6zFrZGa0RP5/NuRWGNuRdhCqoUZz/8nIQgcjX4hngBLVLw 3HFkH+sCraj8ZADTbZFrNr/+82RK4L9tHpYZG4tTFV+JC4PTDPBjN3iR3OlLajEg7whV JegY31xOHHbiNlrmIs3uV/F0d2su0e0ZAF4+chngnNinozA5FNAaDa+2HDxhnpUzq6yp KL9OOqOgFIQrhp2ATkcDJaOfsR25QNfGH35V+IMKes7DPv1pohUHNe9hRyqdE5DFxXHm QCwQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXLZZUu/9NvyEIXt6NxjdPobEfmO5Ww6ree9f32O6N25rNA9q+B73WQ7XueTj2CTbUEP7NjfCVBya4ZmuQ== X-Received: by 10.55.101.215 with SMTP id z206mr23521183qkb.35.1484443019588; Sat, 14 Jan 2017 17:16:59 -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 Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.140.16.132 with HTTP; Sat, 14 Jan 2017 17:16:58 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <98230e5a-36ed-283a-2d5d-a62c2901808e@gentoo.org> References: <1604622.bZRWYHrp25@pinacolada> <98230e5a-36ed-283a-2d5d-a62c2901808e@gentoo.org> From: Rich Freeman Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2017 20:16:58 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 5X2AXLF8iERmkvmKKXy_P0ICOcw Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Formally have Council oversee the Foundation 2.0 To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: 2394bf37-802c-43b0-b8a0-3bfc31bb4548 X-Archives-Hash: 36dc72fb1fa3f7d8443a358e7c0c70e2 On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 6:03 PM, Matthew Thode wrote: > On 01/14/2017 03:43 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: >> >> Motivation: In recent vivid debates the Gentoo metastructure and the >> responsibilities of its organs have been called into question by a vocal >> minority. Compared with how the distribution has been running over the last >> years, most of the proposals aim to adapt reality to organizational >> structures. This proposal instead aims - in a very similar way as Michael's >> SPI proposal - to adapt organizational structures to reality. > > I don't think I agree with this, characterizing my proposal as adapting > reality to organizational structures is the exact opposite of what I'm > trying to achieve. I'd go as far as to say we both want to adapt > organizational structures to reality, and each of us may see that as > different. For me it's the legal reality. Honestly, saying that the Trustees legally have authority over the Council is a bit like saying that the MPAA legally has authority over anybody downloading torrents. Sure, they can go to a court, spend $20k, fight a battle for a few years, and end up with a judgment on one narrow issue. But, in the end everybody else just keeps doing what they're going to do. Ultimately the decision of who is to be entrusted to what is going to come down to the developers, because if they don't respect the authority of somebody trying to wield it then they're not going to invest in Gentoo. I think owning some IP and being able to pay bills is useful, but these are not the things that cause us to donate our efforts to Gentoo, or choose to run it. > > Administration following technical requirements is mostly fine, however, > when a technical person tells the foundation to do something that's not > allowed then at that point it makes sense for things to be dictated in > the other direction. > Honestly, I don't see why the Council would be any more likely to direct people to do things that are illegal than the Trustees would be. If we want legal advice it would make far more sense to retain legal counsel, or maybe work with an organization that does so. To date, on what matter has the Council ever directed anybody to do anything illegal, or failed to take advice from the Trustees. The whole purpose of the Council is to take advice from other bodies which sometimes have more expertise on narrow topics, and find solutions that work for all of us. > I'm not sure I agree with [C]. I don't think the Foundation is looking > to tell the council what to do in purely technical matters, only in > matters that have some bearing in a legal or financial way. There seems to be a misconception that the Council is solely a technical body. All our meeting summaries are logged, including all votes/decisions made. Go through the last two years, and cite some examples of decisions that the Council has made that were purely technical in nature? About the closest thing to that are approving EAPIs, and a LOT of the discussion/feedback on that comes from the PMS team and from the lists/etc, as it should. > Much has been said about [D] for why the Foundation should not oversee > Gentoo as a whole (even though legally that's what we already do...). > In the past the Foundation has been lax in renewal of some things, but I > do believe that this is something that is firmly in the past. It has > not been the case for years. While it is true that we haven't let some of our major items lapse, in general the Foundation struggles just to keep its books straight (and would probably be in fairly dire straits if it weren't for Robin's fairly heroic efforts). Also, in several recent years there hasn't even been a Trustee election due to a lack of candidates, and when there have been elections it is usually 3 people running for 2 seats. The work the Trustees do is important, but it is hard to say that they have a huge mandate when almost nobody wants the job. In contrast in a typical Council election all the seats are up for grabs, most of the winning candidates bother to write manifestos, and in most years there are about half a dozen candidates who do not win. Most of the big debates over how the distro ought to be managed tend to take place in the context of the Council election as well. Another way of looking at it is this: We struggle to find enough people who want to take care of the bills/filings/etc. We will struggle even more to find people who both want to do that, and are trusted to manage overall decisions around how Gentoo operates. > Antagonism from either side isn't going to help things move along but > probably distract from actual goals (like this email probably is). I don't see how a proposal for the Council to oversee the Trustees is any more antagonistic than a proposal for the Trustees to oversee the Council. And the situation would be about the same as it would be under an umbrella org, since most likely the team coordinating with such organizations would fall under the Council. I personally tend to prefer the SPI-like approach because it puts the focus on running a distro, and not on running a corporation. -- Rich