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 5F85E139085 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:14:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2CA89E0DE9; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:14:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (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 E4345E0DC0; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:14:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-io0-f174.google.com (mail-io0-f174.google.com [209.85.223.174]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: djc) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C4892341640; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:14:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io0-f174.google.com with SMTP id j13so58942627iod.3; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 04:14:34 -0800 (PST) X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXKEaq7lHuoH0oEAzlS3OdUe/qx1JYhgS80LkpCP6JUi3ybspaEXkd6aqVPxeNavLlomm+FJgYgtdqdJ1g== X-Received: by 10.107.139.131 with SMTP id n125mr7576787iod.166.1485519272669; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 04:14:32 -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 Received: by 10.107.9.100 with HTTP; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 04:14:12 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20170126160317.1d609eff.mgorny@gentoo.org> References: <20170126160317.1d609eff.mgorny@gentoo.org> From: Dirkjan Ochtman Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 13:14:12 +0100 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Extending Social Contract to guarantee that Gentoo will remain volunteer work To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Cc: gentoo-nfp Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 1288fed3-29bd-4290-9332-0409bcc0ec32 X-Archives-Hash: 038b5b5c8618cb01e85eded08cd52e8f On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny = 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