[gentoo-project] Extending Social Contract to guarantee that Gentoo will remain volunteer work

[gentoo-project] Extending Social Contract to guarantee that Gentoo will remain volunteer work

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2357 bytes --]

[discussion intended at -nfp, CC-ing -project]

Hi,

I would like to add an additional clause to the Gentoo Social Contract
[1], to guarantee that Gentoo will remain a volunteer-based project
and will not turn into some kind of paid enterprise. The suggested text
would be:

| Gentoo is and will remain independent volunteer work. We will never
| pay anyone to develop Gentoo, nor will we accept any donations given
| on the condition of any particular development.

Text improvements welcome.

The main idea is to protect volunteers spending their time on Gentoo.
I don't want to learn one day that my opinion doesn't matter anymore
because a new lead (Council, Trustees, Board, BDFL or any other
possible future form) decides that they/he/she will use the donation
money to hire paid workers doing the Gentoo work that they desire.

I believe that any possible lead Gentoo might elect in the future
should still represent the whole Gentoo community, and the community
should have the right to refuse to follow the directions set by
the lead if he/she stops listening to the community. As volunteers,
we have the right to refuse to do something that in our opinion harms
Gentoo.

Sadly, this could become pointless if the leading bodies keep the power
to hire people to work on Gentoo for money. This means that effectively
they have the power to spend Gentoo money on pursuing their own goals
as long as they can legally claim that the work is done for
the benefit of Gentoo. In volunteer-based project, they effectively
have to *convince* others to work on their ideas and/or spend
a significant effort working on them themselves.

The other part is pretty much a formality, that means to make it clear
that Gentoo is not supposed to be bribed by third-party companies to
alter its course. I don't think it really changes anything but it looks
like a nice thing to state.

I should note that this doesn't mean to prevent anyone from being paid
by third parties to work on Gentoo, or receive any money on account of
what he did or is doing for Gentoo. I think that's fine as long as
the wider Gentoo community has the right to reject any work that it
sees unfit.

[1]:https://www.gentoo.org/get-started/philosophy/social-contract.html

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 963 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Extending Social Contract to guarantee that Gentoo will remain volunteer work

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4009 bytes --]

This makes no sense.

On Thursday, January 26, 2017 4:03:17 PM EST Michał Górny wrote:
> [discussion intended at -nfp, CC-ing -project]
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I would like to add an additional clause to the Gentoo Social Contract
> [1], to guarantee that Gentoo will remain a volunteer-based project
> and will not turn into some kind of paid enterprise. The suggested text

While others head the other direction...
https://www.freexian.com/en/services/debian-lts.html

> would be:
> | Gentoo is and will remain independent volunteer work. We will never
> | pay anyone to develop Gentoo, nor will we accept any donations given
> | on the condition of any particular development.
> 
> Text improvements welcome.
> 
> The main idea is to protect volunteers spending their time on Gentoo.
> I don't want to learn one day that my opinion doesn't matter anymore
> because a new lead (Council, Trustees, Board, BDFL or any other
> possible future form) decides that they/he/she will use the donation
> money to hire paid workers doing the Gentoo work that they desire.

Despite many others doing this successfully, Gnome, FreeBSD, etc

FOSS does not come about solely due to volunteers. If it was not for paid FOSS 
development, most would not exist. It is not 100% because of non paid 
volunteers.

> I believe that any possible lead Gentoo might elect in the future
> should still represent the whole Gentoo community, and the community
> should have the right to refuse to follow the directions set by
> the lead if he/she stops listening to the community. As volunteers,
> we have the right to refuse to do something that in our opinion harms
> Gentoo.

Represent the community? I think you mean the developers. There is no 
representation of the community and many are opposed to such. Need to stop 
calling Developers the community, and stop making it like the community is 
more than Developers. When clearly speaking of Developers only.

> Sadly, this could become pointless if the leading bodies keep the power
> to hire people to work on Gentoo for money. This means that effectively
> they have the power to spend Gentoo money on pursuing their own goals
> as long as they can legally claim that the work is done for
> the benefit of Gentoo. In volunteer-based project, they effectively
> have to *convince* others to work on their ideas and/or spend
> a significant effort working on them themselves.

This is not how most volunteer projects are run. If volunteer projects were 
all convincing others of your mission. Most would go no where.

Go volunteer somewhere in person and see...

> The other part is pretty much a formality, that means to make it clear
> that Gentoo is not supposed to be bribed by third-party companies to
> alter its course. I don't think it really changes anything but it looks
> like a nice thing to state.

Ok, so no sponsors. As a sponsor would likely fund development in a given 
area. Which means if there is no formal process for such, just have to resort 
to other means.

> I should note that this doesn't mean to prevent anyone from being paid
> by third parties to work on Gentoo, or receive any money on account of
> what he did or is doing for Gentoo. I think that's fine as long as
> the wider Gentoo community has the right to reject any work that it
> sees unfit.

Wait, you do not want Gentoo to spend its money to further Gentoo. But you are 
fine with outside companies hiring Gentoo developers to have them enact their 
will. That makes allot of sense... 

I could hire a few Gentoo developers and have them enact my will. They would 
still be volunteers. Not beholden to the Gentoo Foundation but who is cutting 
their pay checks. Wonderful logic!

That makes NO sense. Volunteers cannot be paid directly by the project. But 
letting outsiders pay for influence in the project. Then who is really deciding 
what is best? The project or outsiders?

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Extending Social Contract to guarantee that Gentoo will remain volunteer work

[Aaron W. Swenson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 908 bytes --]

On 2017-01-26 10:41, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> This makes no sense.
> 
> On Thursday, January 26, 2017 4:03:17 PM EST Michał Górny wrote:
> > [discussion intended at -nfp, CC-ing -project]
> > [Bunch of points.]
> 
> [Bunch of counterpoints.]

I share the sentiment of Mr. Thomson.

I think it should be acceptable, and encouraged, for individuals,
corporations, and government to fund the advancement or improvement of
Gentoo either as a whole or in a specific area.

What I believe we should promise – and believe we currently promise – is that:

    Gentoo will always be free and open to contributions of work or
    funding, and free and open for use.

I don’t think there is any real concern or evidence that an individual’s
paid work will significantly interfere with an individual’s unpaid work
any more than it does now with both individual’s unpaid work.

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 343 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Extending Social Contract to guarantee that Gentoo will remain volunteer work

[Amadeusz Żołnowski]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 331 bytes --]

"Aaron W. Swenson" <titanofold@gentoo.org> writes:
> I think it should be acceptable, and encouraged, for individuals,
> corporations, and government to fund the advancement or improvement of
> Gentoo either as a whole or in a specific area.

+1

And I completely disagree with Michał.

Cheers,
-- Amadeusz Żołnowski

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 980 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Extending Social Contract to guarantee that Gentoo will remain volunteer work

[Kent Fredric]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3723 bytes --]

On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 16:03:17 +0100
Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:

> The main idea is to protect volunteers spending their time on Gentoo.
> I don't want to learn one day that my opinion doesn't matter anymore
> because a new lead (Council, Trustees, Board, BDFL or any other
> possible future form) decides that they/he/she will use the donation
> money to hire paid workers doing the Gentoo work that they desire.
> 
> I believe that any possible lead Gentoo might elect in the future
> should still represent the whole Gentoo community, and the community
> should have the right to refuse to follow the directions set by
> the lead if he/she stops listening to the community. As volunteers,
> we have the right to refuse to do something that in our opinion harms
> Gentoo.
> 
> Sadly, this could become pointless if the leading bodies keep the power
> to hire people to work on Gentoo for money. This means that effectively
> they have the power to spend Gentoo money on pursuing their own goals
> as long as they can legally claim that the work is done for
> the benefit of Gentoo. In volunteer-based project, they effectively
> have to *convince* others to work on their ideas and/or spend
> a significant effort working on them themselves.
> 
> The other part is pretty much a formality, that means to make it clear
> that Gentoo is not supposed to be bribed by third-party companies to
> alter its course. I don't think it really changes anything but it looks
> like a nice thing to state.
> 
> I should note that this doesn't mean to prevent anyone from being paid
> by third parties to work on Gentoo, or receive any money on account of
> what he did or is doing for Gentoo. I think that's fine as long as
> the wider Gentoo community has the right to reject any work that it
> sees unfit.

I fear this suggestion will have the exact opposite effect to that intended.

If its not possible to invest money in developers to improve Gentoo, then
you're guaranteeing that every developer who contributes to Gentoo must do
so under the assumption that they get their income elsewhere.

Which might demand that in order to survive, somebody will have to work for some
company in order to survive, and the company will absorb much of their time,
time which they could be contributing to Gentoo, which they must instead focus into
private enterprise.

And that may also force the developer to focus their development efforts for Gentoo
in ways that profit only their employer, while not caring about the user base of Gentoo.

And this is a huge problem in OSS these days.

The inability to survive on it in a Captialist World basically makes opensource an 
adversary of survial.

I myself know of people who have small mounds of personal debt in the interest of looking
after their opensource objectives, and its just not sustainable.

To the point that, as long as we live in this world, we *need* infrastructure in place
to guarantee that we have the resources to ensure we have developers for the projects
that need to be done.

Until then, you're basically hedging bets on people being able to scalp company time for gentoo,
betting on people being able to live two lives so they can help gentoo, betting on the developers
ability to obtain welfare to support themselves while they contribute to gentoo, or betting on
a relatively distant future where the world is progressive enough to create UBI.

Its burning the candle at both ends in the mean time, while median income declines vs inflation
in many countries, making your developer base atrophy as it becomes progressively harder to
support yourself and have energy to contribute.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Extending Social Contract to guarantee that Gentoo will remain volunteer work

[M. J. Everitt]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3908 bytes --]

On 26/01/17 23:12, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 16:03:17 +0100
> Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> The main idea is to protect volunteers spending their time on Gentoo.
>> I don't want to learn one day that my opinion doesn't matter anymore
>> because a new lead (Council, Trustees, Board, BDFL or any other
>> possible future form) decides that they/he/she will use the donation
>> money to hire paid workers doing the Gentoo work that they desire.
>>
>> I believe that any possible lead Gentoo might elect in the future
>> should still represent the whole Gentoo community, and the community
>> should have the right to refuse to follow the directions set by
>> the lead if he/she stops listening to the community. As volunteers,
>> we have the right to refuse to do something that in our opinion harms
>> Gentoo.
>>
>> Sadly, this could become pointless if the leading bodies keep the power
>> to hire people to work on Gentoo for money. This means that effectively
>> they have the power to spend Gentoo money on pursuing their own goals
>> as long as they can legally claim that the work is done for
>> the benefit of Gentoo. In volunteer-based project, they effectively
>> have to *convince* others to work on their ideas and/or spend
>> a significant effort working on them themselves.
>>
>> The other part is pretty much a formality, that means to make it clear
>> that Gentoo is not supposed to be bribed by third-party companies to
>> alter its course. I don't think it really changes anything but it looks
>> like a nice thing to state.
>>
>> I should note that this doesn't mean to prevent anyone from being paid
>> by third parties to work on Gentoo, or receive any money on account of
>> what he did or is doing for Gentoo. I think that's fine as long as
>> the wider Gentoo community has the right to reject any work that it
>> sees unfit.
> I fear this suggestion will have the exact opposite effect to that intended.
>
> If its not possible to invest money in developers to improve Gentoo, then
> you're guaranteeing that every developer who contributes to Gentoo must do
> so under the assumption that they get their income elsewhere.
>
> Which might demand that in order to survive, somebody will have to work for some
> company in order to survive, and the company will absorb much of their time,
> time which they could be contributing to Gentoo, which they must instead focus into
> private enterprise.
>
> And that may also force the developer to focus their development efforts for Gentoo
> in ways that profit only their employer, while not caring about the user base of Gentoo.
>
> And this is a huge problem in OSS these days.
>
> The inability to survive on it in a Captialist World basically makes opensource an 
> adversary of survial.
>
> I myself know of people who have small mounds of personal debt in the interest of looking
> after their opensource objectives, and its just not sustainable.
>
> To the point that, as long as we live in this world, we *need* infrastructure in place
> to guarantee that we have the resources to ensure we have developers for the projects
> that need to be done.
>
> Until then, you're basically hedging bets on people being able to scalp company time for gentoo,
> betting on people being able to live two lives so they can help gentoo, betting on the developers
> ability to obtain welfare to support themselves while they contribute to gentoo, or betting on
> a relatively distant future where the world is progressive enough to create UBI.
>
> Its burning the candle at both ends in the mean time, while median income declines vs inflation
> in many countries, making your developer base atrophy as it becomes progressively harder to
> support yourself and have energy to contribute.
>
+1

Well articulated and summarised, thanks Kent.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Extending Social Contract to guarantee that Gentoo will remain volunteer work

[Dirkjan Ochtman]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> | Gentoo is and will remain independent volunteer work. We will never
> | pay anyone to develop Gentoo, nor will we accept any donations given
> | on the condition of any particular development.

This text, as-is, does not make much sense to me. Why wouldn't
Gentoo-affiliated leadership pay someone to help develop Gentoo? Why
would we not accept donations for some particular body of work, as
long as we think that body of work will move the project forward?

> The main idea is to protect volunteers spending their time on Gentoo.
> I don't want to learn one day that my opinion doesn't matter anymore
> because a new lead (Council, Trustees, Board, BDFL or any other
> possible future form) decides that they/he/she will use the donation
> money to hire paid workers doing the Gentoo work that they desire.

How is your opinion mattering connected to some lead deciding that
they want to use money to help Gentoo (from their perspective)?

If you're worried that some corporate power will start paying a
majority of people on the Council or Board, that seems like a more
reasonable concern (though I have not seen any indications that it
will happen anytime soon), and maybe we can put something in place to
ensure that Council and/or Board can remain diverse enough to prevent
this sort of problem.

> I should note that this doesn't mean to prevent anyone from being paid
> by third parties to work on Gentoo, or receive any money on account of
> what he did or is doing for Gentoo. I think that's fine as long as
> the wider Gentoo community has the right to reject any work that it
> sees unfit.

What are you talking about with this "right to reject"? We already
grant each developer pretty much the authority to move the project
forward whatever way they like, without knowing whether or not they've
been paid for it -- which is just as well, since we mostly don't
really care. Except when some other developer or project doesn't like
it anymore, in which case we have a discussion about it on the mailing
list. How do you foresee that becoming impossible? What's the exact
scenario you're worried about, here?

Cheers,

Dirkjan