From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-project+bounces-6433-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
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 E8040139085
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 20:33:09 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EEE5A234036;
Wed, 25 Jan 2017 20:33:08 +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 B198B23400D
for <gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 20:33:08 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:470:e1cc:3::10] (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:e1cc:3::10])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
(Authenticated sender: prometheanfire)
by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C5444341236
for <gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 20:33:06 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Merging Trustees and Council / Developers and
Foundation - 1.0 reply
References: <35d4687b-4cbd-cf79-254c-c7476c06bb3a@gentoo.org>
<22645.58328.521107.564927@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de>
<1d601c44-e136-382d-54f4-27d3437dfcc5@gentoo.org>
<87r349iy3d.fsf@kestrel.kyomu.43-1.org>
To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
From: Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@gentoo.org>
Message-ID: <b2ed8428-ef48-f230-f44b-95518cb15a30@gentoo.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 14:32:57 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/45.6.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-project+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-project+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-project+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list <gentoo-project.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87r349iy3d.fsf@kestrel.kyomu.43-1.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
protocol="application/pgp-signature";
boundary="N8rs03eEeccDri0BKm7vqHSUvn6f8T3PR"
X-Archives-Salt: efe400eb-0d48-413b-bc3e-729695b20cf0
X-Archives-Hash: b392afe30b971b1e640451420edc65c7
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--N8rs03eEeccDri0BKm7vqHSUvn6f8T3PR
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="w06CO15uLEWNB6pODFOjvpj2UChi5AGFO"
From: Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@gentoo.org>
Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
Message-ID: <b2ed8428-ef48-f230-f44b-95518cb15a30@gentoo.org>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Merging Trustees and Council / Developers and
Foundation - 1.0 reply
References: <35d4687b-4cbd-cf79-254c-c7476c06bb3a@gentoo.org>
<22645.58328.521107.564927@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de>
<1d601c44-e136-382d-54f4-27d3437dfcc5@gentoo.org>
<87r349iy3d.fsf@kestrel.kyomu.43-1.org>
In-Reply-To: <87r349iy3d.fsf@kestrel.kyomu.43-1.org>
--w06CO15uLEWNB6pODFOjvpj2UChi5AGFO
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 01/11/2017 06:24 AM, Matthias Maier wrote:
> Hi Matthew,
>=20
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017, at 04:59 CST, Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@gento=
o.org> wrote:
>=20
> [...]
>=20
>> I think I'm leaning towards
>> the 'board' being what is currently trustees + hr(comrel) + pr + infra=
=2E
>> Under that would go what is currently being done by council.
>=20
> I am a bit astonished by the sudden proposal to centralize more power
> under the Gentoo Foundation, A US based non-profit. As was laid out by
> ulm and dilfridge, there are a number of severe legal uncertainties for=
> non-US citizens participating in such a construct and frankly speaking =
I
> do not see the need for it. On the contrary.
>=20
I don't necessarily see this as a centralization of power. I think a
lot of the debate has been over "Who should 'control' Gentoo"
I think that should be the Foundation as the foundation is what
currently controls the name of Gentoo and Gentoo's infrastructure and
finances. The foundation also has the most legal exposure. Further I'd
make the claim that because of the Foundations current status
(maintaining legal / financial control of Gentoo), that the Foundation
already does, even if the Foundation is very hands off now.
As far as the legal uncertainties go, my proposal (the new 1.1 one)
makes Foundation membership optional, but it would be opt-out to
encourage participation. If there's blowback on the opt-out part then
it could be made opt-in, but I'd like to keep participation high if
possible.
> - It is my firm believe that it is *vital* for an open source project
> that essentially consists of volunteers from around the world to be
> organized as a community and not as a legal entity under some
> jurisdiction.
The problem is that we NEED to exist as a legal entity as well.
Partially for copyright reasons, but also for tax reasons. If we don't
then anyone could register the trademark of 'Gentoo Linux' and then sue
us. (not that they can't file frivolous lawsuits anyway).
My goal is to move the areas that expose Gentoo legally and financially
to be directly under the foundation while keeping the technical matters
controlled through Council. This does not preclude having council have
things run through them and then to the Foundation, but the foundation
should be the final stop in escalations involving legal or financial
matters.
The way I see it is that Gentoo would basically remain as the status
quo, with some slight differences in reporting structure.
>=20
> Therefore the status quo makes a lot of sense:
>=20
> - the developer community organizing itself
>=20
> - the Foundation taking care of legal matters (finances and
> infrastructure) that need a legal entity in some jurisdiction
>=20
> The vital bit is the fact that the developer community is
> self-organizing and this includes the power to decide who is a membe=
r
> and who is not.
>=20
The Foundation has already had to be consulted in one instance about a
potential dev from a country for which the US had sanctions against at
the time. To me that means that you currently don't have 'ultimate'
power to decide who is a dev. No mater where Gentoo is organized I see
this being an issue.
> - Now, all you essentially propose is to shift the "hr(comrel)" part t=
o
> the Foundation - all the rest (trustees, pr, and infra) it is alread=
y
> in charge of.
>=20
> So, why is it important to give the Foundation the power to decide
> over the "hr" part of the Gentoo developer community?=20
>=20
> If it is just about comrel, well, we can easily reorganize comrel
> into an elected body (by the Gentoo developer community) similarly t=
o
> the council.
>=20
Being elected is a good decision, but not one my proposal is looking to
make. The reason I'd like comrel to operate under the Foundation is
legal exposure. I'd suspect that we'd be largely hands off. They could
even still escalate to the Council and from Council to the Foundation.
> I do not see any necessity for the Foundation to be involved in the
> self organization of the developer community. On the contrary, there=
> is the danger that a strengthened Foundation will severely undermine=
> the authority of our developer community procedures, with
>=20
> - trustees being able to overrule the council on technical and
> community decisions
>=20
I think/hope this can be prevented with a bylaw prohibiting making
technical decisions that don't have impact in legal or financial ways.
(prohibiting an ebuild for licensing issues is something we would be
able to do, but not prohibiting version a in favor of version b of
something like ansible vs chef because we prefer one).
> - trustees being able to overrule our (developer) recruiting
> process
>=20
As I said above, we have already been consulted at least once (it was a
while ago) and because of legal exposure I think we have to be.
In practice I don't see us doing much other than accepting new devs as
they come. Only in extreme circumstances do I see us exercise that power=
=2E
> So, as a trustee (and the one proposing this move), why do you want to=
> have this power presiding over the developer community?
>=20
Personally, I don't. It's a lot of work and bikeshedding. But I think
this will make us better able to handle conflict within the distro
(whatever the source or reason).
> Best,
> Matthias
>=20
--=20
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)
--w06CO15uLEWNB6pODFOjvpj2UChi5AGFO--
--N8rs03eEeccDri0BKm7vqHSUvn6f8T3PR
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=VzbH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--N8rs03eEeccDri0BKm7vqHSUvn6f8T3PR--