From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFAD81387FD for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2014 20:05:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 87542E08C8; Sat, 7 Jun 2014 20:05:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-vc0-f169.google.com (mail-vc0-f169.google.com [209.85.220.169]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E7B3DE08C1 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2014 20:05:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vc0-f169.google.com with SMTP id la4so4820062vcb.0 for ; Sat, 07 Jun 2014 13:05:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=6Bk3fzTfc16ZspHl9Ke7l/tOmSCtSKl7KG5wyQUMwok=; b=GfxjpxzkQTJPv+0g5tExh472exVD02Z1AYQXy2bUttbj9ji6C46O/BUDpZfw736b82 Gk0ppWxAIfQ8Z6MAMf+g/KG39syRy/42+lklH3pU+SUImYU5pz9/CM/sSZpD8ECsj9U/ d/DVpxBy1OnRq//YQSSG4sBC6gMwg4Cpm+LnrNlaA+LXc3fG1+DvlZM4egpLWbV5J/AJ 6Y7Vj/kwtXjc/bH5grtg6knprPNux3Muo2/v0Fqimh0ThMkDOaEDf4cazbDIi7ifkwu0 CPq4DRD1nxDP3DGgkf3wq3B1RTIs9H8dKRK5utNKS4C01RQPCWLKXPil5tIx6zjy7jsL d8AA== 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 X-Received: by 10.221.69.68 with SMTP id yb4mr13058286vcb.49.1402171538030; Sat, 07 Jun 2014 13:05:38 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.52.30.227 with HTTP; Sat, 7 Jun 2014 13:05:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1402162558.1662.0@NeddySeagoon_Static> References: <201406040003.05726.dilfridge@gentoo.org> <1402162558.1662.0@NeddySeagoon_Static> Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2014 16:05:37 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 859JfVSrXYlVoDCeeaTUoyuYipI Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call For Agenda Items - 10 Jun 2014 From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: 725c6b2d-0fa6-418f-9802-51bf0d47aa52 X-Archives-Hash: 807898427a6ef639c18d3b1870f47733 On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 1:35 PM, Roy Bamford wrote: > The foundation do not need to be involved any more that they are now. > Anyone can apply for foundation funding for a project. > As an individual trustee, I don't see this project as any different to > any other project that way apply for funding. I think the idea is that the policy would be that the Foundation would agree to not fund services that didn't follow the guidelines. The rationale would be that if somebody hosts a service funded by the Foundation and it gets used to serve malware then the Foundation might be legally responsible. That is why most organizations don't let random people run its webservers/etc without any kind of adherence to central administration/security/etc. Or perhaps Foundation funds get used to build some service, but because there is no coordination with infra there is no way to ever move it into production and it just fizzles out. This wouldn't be about keeping people from running services, but rather encouraging it in a way that makes it safer for the community, gives recognition to those who built it, and gives it some kind of roadmap to being a full-fleged Gentoo service. Maybe it creates a way to on-board new devs into Infra as well. I'm talking about services - if somebody wants a sparc under their desk not generally exposed to the world advertising its services under the Gentoo name then there really isn't any need for this. I imagine most organizations do it this way. If some Google employee wants to build a development tool or a 10% project hosted on a PC in their cube most likely the policy requirements are minimal, but on the other hand if somebody is touching some server that actually generates content that goes out under the google.com domain then I'm sure the red tape gets fairly thick. If we're not going to give any kind of Foundation preference to following the new guidelines, then I don't really see the point in going forward with it. Rich