[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: gentoo-project
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Groups under the Council or Foundation: the structure & processes thereof
From: Alec Warner <antarus () gentoo ! org>
Date: 2016-11-13 19:26:29
Message-ID: CAAr7Pr_syUi1Lhr-x52bzQM04ST0baGobCKVEVH3Vu356i5E4w () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 4:33 AM, Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 13/10/2016 01:30, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > TL;DR: move comrel, infra, PR to Foundation. Have strict(er)
> > application of policies to them in line with their powers.
>
> The foundation was made only to collect and redistribute money. In order
> to do that it was made sort of copyright collector as well (but that was
> actively blocked by the fact the EU law prevents that).
>
What I think is actually true is that there are some risks the current
board sees, and they (we?, I am on the board after all) see one way to
reduce the risk is by this joining. I think we should also be open to
evaluating the risks and seeking other avenues to mitigate them.
I think, speaking in general terms, one risk is the following.
1) When a community member feels harmed by the community, they can file a
suit. They can sue individuals, or they can sue the Foundation. They cannot
sue "Comrel" for example, because Comrel is not an entity. They can sue the
individuals that compose comrel, or they can sue the Foundation.
2) If they sue the Foundation, we are worried that a 100% hands-off
solution is going to be an effective defense. In the current scheme, the
Foundation has no real control over the operation of Comrel. I think there
is a lack of confidence that this defense is sufficient to dismiss a suit
though.
So we discard that defense. What other defenses can we offer?
1) We can move Comrel under the Foundation. That way we have influence over
their activities. We can create policies that provide better legal defenses
(like the Code of Conduct for instance) but also many of the transparency
policies you see on other threads.
2) We could also decide that having Comrel under the Foundation is a bad
idea, but we could do other things. Many of these could be not direct
governance, but merely oversight to insure that the governing Gentoo bodies
are acting in a legal way.
3) We could decide the risk is worth it; secure insurance, and do nothing.
I think speaking more generally, you could replace "Comrel" with any Gentoo
project. At the end of the day the Foundation holds all the assets and pays
all the bills. How do we mitigate the Foundation's liability for the
actions of volunteers in the project?
Ultimately that is the question I want addressed.
-A
> In short and sweet summary:
>
> - The Council was made to be the team leading Gentoo, we have elections
> for that reason.
> - Recruitment should get new wonderful people as Developers, either by
> inviting them or by vetting them.
> - Comrel is offloading from the council the management of conflicts
> between developers. Incidentally it had to manage also troublemakers,
> creeps, and other horrible people that the recruitment process failed to
> recognize as such (luckily happened really few times).
> - Q/A is offloading from the council the management of day-by-day
> technical issues and possibly prevent people not so skilled from destroy
> systems.
> - Foundation should just care of money on behalf of the council and not
> interfere with the community.
>
> Giving the Foundation more power than act as financial operations is a
> quite bad idea to me.
>
> lu
>
>
[Attachment #3 (text/html)]
<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 \
at 4:33 AM, Luca Barbato <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lu_zero@gentoo.org" \
target="_blank">lu_zero@gentoo.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote \
class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px \
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On \
13/10/2016 01:30, Robin H. Johnson wrote:<br> > TL;DR: move comrel, infra, PR to \
Foundation. Have strict(er)<br> > application of policies to them in line with \
their powers.<br></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px \
0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
The foundation was made only to collect and redistribute money. In order<br>
to do that it was made sort of copyright collector as well (but that was<br>
actively blocked by the fact the EU law prevents \
that).<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>What I think is actually true is that \
there are some risks the current board sees, and they (we?, I am on the board after \
all) see one way to reduce the risk is by this joining. I think we should also be \
open to evaluating the risks and seeking other avenues to mitigate \
them.</div><div><br></div><div>I think, speaking in general terms, one risk is the \
following.</div><div><br></div><div>1) When a community member feels harmed by the \
community, they can file a suit. They can sue individuals, or they can sue the \
Foundation. They cannot sue "Comrel" for example, because Comrel is not an \
entity. They can sue the individuals that compose comrel, or they can sue the \
Foundation.</div><div><br></div><div>2) If they sue the Foundation, we are worried \
that a 100% hands-off solution is going to be an effective defense. In the current \
scheme, the Foundation has no real control over the operation of Comrel. I think \
there is a lack of confidence that this defense is sufficient to dismiss a suit \
though.</div><div><br></div><div>So we discard that defense. What other defenses can \
we offer?</div><div><br></div><div>1) We can move Comrel under the Foundation. That \
way we have influence over their activities. We can create policies that provide \
better legal defenses (like the Code of Conduct for instance) but also many of the \
transparency policies you see on other threads.</div><div><br></div><div>2) We could \
also decide that having Comrel under the Foundation is a bad idea, but we could do \
other things. Many of these could be not direct governance, but merely oversight to \
insure that the governing Gentoo bodies are acting in a legal \
way.</div><div><br></div><div>3) We could decide the risk is worth it; secure \
insurance, and do nothing.</div><div><br></div><div>I think speaking more generally, \
you could replace "Comrel" with any Gentoo project. At the end of the day \
the Foundation holds all the assets and pays all the bills. How do we mitigate the \
Foundation's liability for the actions of volunteers in the \
project?</div><div><br></div><div>Ultimately that is the question I want \
addressed.</div><div><br></div><div>-A</div><div><br></div><blockquote \
class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px \
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
In short and sweet summary:<br>
<br>
- The Council was made to be the team leading Gentoo, we have elections<br>
for that reason.<br>
- Recruitment should get new wonderful people as Developers, either by<br>
inviting them or by vetting them.<br>
- Comrel is offloading from the council the management of conflicts<br>
between developers. Incidentally it had to manage also troublemakers,<br>
creeps, and other horrible people that the recruitment process failed to<br>
recognize as such (luckily happened really few times).<br>
- Q/A is offloading from the council the management of day-by-day<br>
technical issues and possibly prevent people not so skilled from destroy<br>
systems.<br>
- Foundation should just care of money on behalf of the council and not<br>
interfere with the community.<br>
<br>
Giving the Foundation more power than act as financial operations is a<br>
quite bad idea to me.<br>
<br>
lu<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic