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 1AF8E139085 for ; Fri, 6 Jan 2017 20:22:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 34EAC22419D; Fri, 6 Jan 2017 20:22:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail1.obsidian-studios.com (mail.obsidian-studios.com [173.230.135.215]) (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 F1E7AE0CBB for ; Fri, 6 Jan 2017 20:22:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 25743 invoked from network); 6 Jan 2017 20:22:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO assp1.obsidian-studios.com) (wlt@::ffff:127.0.0.1) by ::ffff:127.0.0.1 with ESMTPA; 6 Jan 2017 20:22:36 -0000 X-Assp-Version: 2.5.3(16294) on assp1.obsidian-studios.com X-Assp-ID: assp1.obsidian-studios.com m1-34155-06761 X-Assp-Session: 3259E0CB040 (mail 1) X-Assp-Envelope-From: wlt-ml@o-sinc.com X-Assp-Intended-For: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org X-Assp-Server-TLS: yes Received: from unknown ([fdbe:bad:a55:0:1::211] helo=wlt.localnet) by assp1.obsidian-studios.com with SMTPSA(TLSv1_2 ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256) (2.5.3); 6 Jan 2017 15:22:35 -0500 From: "William L. Thomson Jr." To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Merging Trustees and Council / Developers and Foundation Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2017 15:22:29 -0500 Message-ID: Organization: Obsidian-Studios, Inc. User-Agent: KMail/5.3.3 (Linux/4.7.5-gentoo; KDE/5.28.0; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <57d3af79-4212-b8b9-40df-6120b1445c8b@gentoo.org> 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 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2376827.VuqXhKDqhJ"; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: c32f2d88-e989-490f-87b8-6b27672ce95d X-Archives-Hash: 8f5d0be21a37c9264b9f67d3ae3726f5 --nextPart2376827.VuqXhKDqhJ Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Friday, January 6, 2017 1:43:17 PM EST Alec Warner wrote: > > Like I said, I wanted to avoid legal speculation. So lets assume a person > can legally be a member of the US foundation, but for undisclosed reasons > that person chooses not to do so. Sure but some of that is common sense vs speculation. You get nothing being a member, other than a vote. You do get things being a developer and are a representative of Gentoo at that point. Developer or Staff is more official than a Foundation member. I do not believe anyone would say a member represents any organization officially, just staff (developers etc), officers, and the board. A Foundation member could never act as if they represented Gentoo. Developers, staff, officers, and the board are representatives. Therefore different legalities would apply. > Should that person still be able to be a developer? Yes, just acknowledging they are waiving their right to vote. If that is the route taken. > Will gentoo still accept contributions from that person? Why not, membership is not tied to anything other than ability to vote. Just will show they do not care much about Gentoo other than their itch. > This is my reading of the point Andreas is trying to raise. I suspect it is > solvable as you mention, by letting developers opt-out of being legally a > part of the Foundation (as is the case today.) The concern of course is > that if too many developers opt out we end up with a similar problem that > we have today (not enough foundation members.) Yes, but you cannot force people to care about something they do not. Or take interest in something they are not. One would hope more would care about Gentoo as a entity rather than just the itch they are scratching. IMHO if you are not taking part in foundation or organization on some level or another you do not really care. It is about the same as not voting for your local politician. Then do not complain or comment about politics. If you care, then vote, it is that simple. Foundation membership is so minimal, I really do not understand why so many object for likely no reason. If they opt out or just do not vote, its basically the same. If they are a developer or staff they are already associated with Gentoo and under the Foundation indirectly. I would almost go so far as to say developers and staff cannot be excluded from the foundation. They are just not required to vote. Anyone can easily ignore such things. Them being a member and not voting should not matter to anyone. The real issue is voting in the Foundation. Members or not if people are not interested, they will not vote. If the Gentoo Foundation was functional and helped move Gentoo and other things forward. Maybe more would be interested, as the Foundation may benefit them in ways it is not now. > The benefit of a merged structure is that only voting developers vote for > the merged board; so if one was to abstain from being a foundation member > they could also lose the benefit of voting for the board (so they can't > choose council members for example.) This is a loss of influence compared > to the current system but could provide some incentive for developers to > retain nominal involvement outside of being a simple committer. I think the easiest solution is just to make all developers and staff. Members of the foundation. They cannot opt out of the foundation, unless retired. Some grace period for retaining membership once retired showing respect for their contributions and they may have wisdom to help guide newer generations. If anyone has issue being part of the foundation, they can simply not vote for the board, and still vote for council. If they have a conflict of interest being a member, then I am sure they have a conflict of interest being a developer. They have 1 vote for foundation matters, but can be 100% in control as a developer in their neck of the woods. Any conflict of interest really comes from being on the board or council. Unless someone has legal reasons which would prevent them from membership. That should be the only exclusion. It does force membership, but that is moot. They are not forced to vote, though ideally they would. If someone is legally prevented from being a member. I would like to know how they are legally able to be a developer. I think the whole issue is pretty moot and a waste of time. Really need to figure out how to motivate more to care about Gentoo and voting will not be an issue all around. Just like any voting, if the issue matters people turn out. -- William L. Thomson Jr. --nextPart2376827.VuqXhKDqhJ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iF0EABECAB0WIQTEeldqZjmVut8bVHJNcbKkg6ozUAUCWG/8hQAKCRBNcbKkg6oz UH3OAJ4lpHCBhx4zggxt6q6u0E9IUSkY9ACeNF51xnmLu/O5U7my13H9FGSmb4A= =zgsT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2376827.VuqXhKDqhJ--