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

["William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@o-sinc.com>]

[-- 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 --]