[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 19:27:09
Message-ID: CAAr7Pr9qF4O0P-fdKP1wa2LeXMTYZ_U-KHTk-5KnRH-xotrZWw () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 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.
>
Er, sorry, a 100% hands off solution is *not* going to be effective, sorry.
-A
>
> 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"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Nov \
13, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Alec Warner <span dir="ltr"><<a \
href="mailto:antarus@gentoo.org" target="_blank">antarus@gentoo.org</a>></span> \
wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px \
#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div \
class="gmail_quote"><span class="">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></span><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></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Er, sorry, a 100% \
hands off solution is *not* going to be effective, \
sorry.</div><div><br></div><div>-A</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" \
style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div \
dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><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><span class="HOEnZb"><font \
color="#888888"><div><br></div><div>-A</div></font></span><span \
class=""><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></span></div><br></div></div>
</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