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 1BDE6139085 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 17:28:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 00399234036; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 17:28:41 +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 B4D2F234025 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 17:28:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 27271 invoked from network); 11 Jan 2017 17:28:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO assp1.obsidian-studios.com) (wlt@::ffff:127.0.0.1) by ::ffff:127.0.0.1 with ESMTPA; 11 Jan 2017 17:28:39 -0000 X-Assp-Version: 2.5.3(16294) on assp1.obsidian-studios.com X-Assp-ID: assp1.obsidian-studios.com m1-55719-11475 X-Assp-Session: 32554BA6A78 (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); 11 Jan 2017 12:28:39 -0500 From: "William L. Thomson Jr." To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Merging Trustees and Council / Developers and Foundation - 1.0 reply Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 12:28:35 -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: <20170111175050.12e5887d.mgorny@gentoo.org> References: <35d4687b-4cbd-cf79-254c-c7476c06bb3a@gentoo.org> <20170111175050.12e5887d.mgorny@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="nextPart212047641.xB8cNgxcps"; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 089e5621-bf26-4082-a980-b07301b31472 X-Archives-Hash: 0f15d8f09d0c32bd2ecb313678baeb03 --nextPart212047641.xB8cNgxcps Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Wednesday, January 11, 2017 5:50:50 PM EST Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: >=20 > And how is that not discriminating? On one hand you talk of giving > people outside the project the means to influence it, yet you > explicitly take away the right of voting for people outside > the Foundation (even though they are in the project, after all). If as a Developer you opt out of Foundation membership. You cannot turn=20 around and claim discrimination to something you chose to leave. > I'm not sure if you've seen that but Gentoo developers lately have been > harassed by multiple users who had no to minor contributions yet > believed they are the best people to tell developers how do their work. Which is why they would be better served to voice their opinions to Trustee= s.=20 Let Trustees approach council if they feel it is best. If Council feels the= =20 need they could consult Developers. =20 > Accepting input is one thing. Letting people who do not do current > Gentoo work (=3D aren't affected by the decisions directly) decide on > what others should do is another. Just because Foundation, Council, and Gentoo project want to do something.= =20 Does not mean YOU have to do that. At the same time a project should not be= =20 just left up to those scratching itches. If by some means all that individu= al=20 itch scratching leads to something collectively great. At some point has to be some big picture to how all the stuff fits together. Are we a organized team/project or just individuals doing what ever? > How can a user who has barely any contact with Gentoo developers be > able to choose good candidates for the Council? Users would never have ability to vote for Council. Foundation members can= =20 only vote for Foundation stuff. Which Council voting would be left to=20 Developers. > I don't see how either of those arguments are related to me being > a Foundation member or not. After all, the Foundation protects *all* > Gentoo work, independently of whether a developer doing it is a member > or not, doesn't it? So the Foundation and Trustees should be legally liable for all your action= s=20 without any influence? You can do what ever you want and we will be liable for your actions. Do yo= u=20 want to be liable for all my actions. That is asking way to much of a Trust= ee=20 IMHO. Be 100% responsible and legally liable with no influence. =20 =20 > I don't see a strict reason to do that, nor I see a strict reason not > to do that. Just pointing out that lawfully membership could be > considered fully irrelevant. Sure and By Laws can be revised and policies enacted to address any such=20 issues, if needed. > > > It could be best, but could also result in a insiders only club. >=20 > Excuse me but how is the Foundation membership different? Foundation > members still have to be approved by Trustees. Not if Foundation members are only developers. There would be no approval a= s=20 every Developer would have automatic membership till opt out. =46oundation membership approval would come from outsiders/contributors. Ma= king=20 their case to the Trustees why they should be a member in the Gentoo=20 foundation and able to vote. =20 > They can get recruited. It's not hard. Getting a developer status > (without commit access) mostly involves proving that you're accustomed > to organization matters of how Gentoo operates. There are many in the community who either cannot or do not want to be come= =20 Developers in any capacity. Just the same as those who do not want to be=20 members in the Foundation. > Do you really think Gentoo users should start telling developers how > Gentoo should be operating without learning how it's operating right > now first? No, but how Gentoo operates today may not be how it always has or always=20 should. Gentoo is about choice, and should not exclude input from the=20 community. Gentoo Developers do not know everything about Gentoo. There are many outsi= de=20 of Gentoo who may know more technically and about the project organization= =20 etc. Do not assume you are a expert or guru because you are a Developer, an= d=20 another is not because they are part of the community. Who is to say Developers even know what is best, without considering others= =20 perspectives. > No. But it means that I'm no longer in position to tell others what to > do, or vote who the best candidate for Council/Trustee/etc. is. Would you not have any wisdom from your experience to share with others? =20 > I don't mind past contributors having advisory roles for Gentoo. I do > mind having them vote on people when they no longer are interested in > directly participating in the complete developer community. Which is all they could do in being a member of the Foundation. Sure the=20 community could have more votes than developers. That is where Trustees=20 present such ideas to Council, on behalf of the community. =20 > I believe the legal liability concern is a rare enough issue for > Trustees to be involved rather when that is a possible case rather than > having them approve every step of everyone else. True, but just because no one has sued does not mean the project should not= be=20 aware of such liabilities and seek to protect itself from law suit. > Yes, I know that they can. And they also know that by doing this they > are going to lose many useful contributors. Gentoo can't exist without > people doing the work, even if the common mailing list complainers > finally get what they wanted and are satisfied. Gentoo will not exist if it loses it community. Developers come from the=20 community. It took a few to start the project, but many to grow it. Those m= any=20 came from the community. Like any business, it is not the employees that matter but the customers. S= ure=20 they business cannot run without employees, but without customers, there is= no=20 business. Thus without a community to use the stuff, there is no Gentoo. Lots of software out there no one uses. =20 > It's not perfect but I believe Gentoo could prevail. Maybe it'd even be > beneficial long-term, since it would let the developers actually doing > a lot of work to split from those who mostly talk. Pretty much getting > Gentoo back to the roots, as Daniel Robbins seen it. That is not how Daniel sees it, and does not agree with such separation. Th= at=20 is what people need to understand. What Gentoo has become it was not intend= ed=20 to be, nor did it start that way. > Of course, there's the trademark issue. It could end up in the 'FFmpeg > fiasco' where actual development would continue in a separate entity, > and Gentoo Foundation would just 'steal' their work and publish it as > the official Gentoo. There could be lots of issues, why it is best for all to work together. Not= =20 create separate entities or potential division within the project. But=20 mechanisms to help keep it together by working together. =2D-=20 William L. Thomson Jr. --nextPart212047641.xB8cNgxcps Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iF0EABECAB0WIQTEeldqZjmVut8bVHJNcbKkg6ozUAUCWHZrQwAKCRBNcbKkg6oz ULfgAKCOazYwyJh0JTSI5L1Ge4jqOOEk3ACeKjopGemzO0CF4PsDvXVf/mOINLo= =VPoQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart212047641.xB8cNgxcps--