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 C4304139085 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 23:03:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EFBCC234127; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 23:03:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qt0-x241.google.com (mail-qt0-x241.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::241]) (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 C3283234114 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 23:03:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qt0-x241.google.com with SMTP id n13so10178621qtc.0 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 15:03:33 -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=/THf5rsoxQebulU2MttfU6fwSl+OQx1MUcq5cMYXea8=; b=Dc6JhxLrQN2CSk7gtCynvsgkT13sCtCIblFt3hHxvc9tAGJjOF1DtgtlNNn/s8uQLT XcG3+YCHGgw26xBfZLIx0Dz0zexElA+Ar0PfFiFC/M6pkTJHlORqQqgNTHITfWi8IjUq 5zwd2kvTRsPNGouN5WDuAZlY7pWM/VCorwkU7YJ6F7ttGSGmCOyij8Kjv5Wb19XSRppp oaVorq5ow5poyguUJKtTojRheZzIf1ujKLlOfmG4CiycOe6unHW20SZ1c9TaOhJL3/9u HW3RxOfLAVKzA3m2cduWPQ144AYx3Ocq6lU7zIhHDCCWGR6AMn0+7Rbp0NSVkFCC3YKU QpKQ== 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=/THf5rsoxQebulU2MttfU6fwSl+OQx1MUcq5cMYXea8=; b=dj3OLkN52Qr9FZzQ1mRrGNV/tj3IYqrRHnFBdA7O/vnHH+QWIAAt7+YekKH0JX1Wkm 0QiVOe4fSgr/Q8xKt/3qKmR6WXO2jMqyv289SiPAU+f6L+p9Pa9shYTDPO07I3/dZpZ2 Jkm/c8nklObEU+l2XkFietBEwx1twm3qTp68/lSBE086JoYFevHCAQmXDPUsNlDGXoda 1lcRSztMwhtZo76Q+bQezcL3+e/CNJ2csR93OznNmNXgMt053Wd4QSc86zNGlCHXNLr8 15pyAdP1ISnk0A95Uxq6piKHvW+xJjeorqvj7ht3p3mdIH4KHUfkk70CzNROnNO4jUBR jGAw== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJNzqfULeEDhVH5a7ZVjJHN9s3PhQfgnJFe4tY/BhYhg4BFtydHtZEsUU7ztyfvmeJk6Wj5CmgTW+urdg== X-Received: by 10.237.55.196 with SMTP id j62mr3087802qtb.36.1484089412628; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 15:03:32 -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; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 15:03:32 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <35d4687b-4cbd-cf79-254c-c7476c06bb3a@gentoo.org> References: <35d4687b-4cbd-cf79-254c-c7476c06bb3a@gentoo.org> From: Rich Freeman Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 18:03:32 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: wCYz-_FFtmgD6PaRvweB6d3yLlo Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Merging Trustees and Council / Developers and Foundation - 1.0 reply To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: 0b3a1718-8578-4744-9b78-65407268f7c6 X-Archives-Hash: 4354c0367ab6fa391341b677593452bf On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 5:37 PM, Matthew Thode wrote: > 1. External control of Gentoo. > > I don't think there's much stopping us from investigating this as a > possible option in the future but I think that this is mostly orthogonal > to this proposal. Whatever the new 'board' would do would would just be > reduced if we do choose external control. While this is sort-of true I think it is still worth tackling at the same time, since if the board has reduced responsibilities that might be important to people voting for the board. For example, it is less useful to have an accountant on the board (say, at the expense of somebody who is more of a developer) if there won't be any accounting to do. It has been pointed out that we might still have to get a lot of paperwork in order to make a transition to SPI. I think that is something we should of course investigate with them, and if it turns out the case they might be willing to help us with it, or recommend somebody who has done this in the past for them. They would also probably be able to give us a checklist of specific actions that would need to be completed, which is a lot less nebulous a task than "get the Foundation in order," and we could probably bid the work out to a CPA/lawyer or other qualified professional (it is a defined and finite amount of work with a clear exit strategy). > SPI has been mentioned a couple of times and if anyone wants to > contact them to work something out to propose to the foundation I don't > think there's anything stopping you :D That's fair. I think the onus is always on people putting forward a proposal to do the legwork, though it was probably still wise to give the trustees the right of first refusal since it is a Foundation-related thing. > > 9. Members of the 'board' having conflicts with their job. > > I'm, not sure about this as it's likely case by case. But I > personally don't see this causing much more issues than what is already > caused by working on an open source project. > I'll just comment that this would be one of the benefits of going the SPI route (or another such org). The board would not have the same legal conflicts as it would if it were actually legally responsible for a Foundation. Either way I of course support the general direction of your proposal. I just think that this is a big enough detail that it shouldn't just be put on the back burner. -- Rich