[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: Raymond Jennings <shentino () gmail ! com>
Date: 2016-11-13 22:33:30
Message-ID: CAGDaZ_rghGxc=XYm1NEcJaUbDRyZXcETPO7=E2q1rj84aFbTOA () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
My personal opinion here is that *anything* to do with legal issues, such
as legal liability, no matter how theoretical, is something the trustees
should be involved in.
Per my own dev quiz, the foundation's job is to worry about legal issues
(lawsuits, copyrights, etc) and financial issues (donations, server
hardware) so that the codemonkey developers don't have to.
That is why I CCed the trustees when the logo stuff on third party sites
came up. I don't think there's any conspiracy to keep the trustees in the
dark, but I *do* perceive a lack of communication.
Plus, america is *notorious* for being a sue-happy litigious society. Even
a completely baseless lawsuit against the foundation would probably cost
money to defend against. I'll have my side rant about the american legal
system later, but for the present topic at hand, I would very much like the
trustees to at least be monitoring the situation.
On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 13/11/2016 20:26, Alec Warner 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.
>
> One step back, if somebody with the Gentoo hat on (or off) does
> something horrible or creepy or in any way against our social contract
> or the code of conduct, we, as Gentoo, provide a point to complain so
> that the name of Gentoo is not tarnished by such actions.
>
> That point of complaint is currently Comrel.
> Comrel has to evaluate the situation at the best of the team's
> possibilities and in that specific case ask infra and the groups
> managing the communication channels to prevent that person to keep doing
> what's doing.
> That's not the primary activity of the team, but we had to manage that
> as well.
>
> If somebody feels wronged by Comrel proceedings there is the Council to
> appeal.
>
> After the Council the person feeling wronged can try to sue the person
> he thinks that wronged him assuming there is any legal leg to stand.
>
> The foundation is nowhere there as long:
> - the issue isn't about copyright, assuming the copyright had been
> misrelinquished to the foundation.
> - the issue is not mismanagement of money.
> - the issue is not cause by hardware owned by the foundation.
>
> The foundation does not hire anybody in Gentoo, the foundation has no
> liability for what people does as long it does not involves the 3 points
> above.
>
> > 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.
>
> They cannot sue the foundation, the foundation does not have any link to
> the people, beside maybe providing hardware to few developers that
> needed it.
>
> > 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.
>
> You do not have the problem until you start hiring people.
>
> > 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?
>
> The foundation is not liable for any volunteers actions, bar the 3 cases
> I mentioned.
>
> lu
>
>
[Attachment #3 (text/html)]
<div dir="ltr">My personal opinion here is that *anything* to do with legal issues, \
such as legal liability, no matter how theoretical, is something the trustees should \
be involved in.<div><br></div><div>Per my own dev quiz, the foundation's job is \
to worry about legal issues (lawsuits, copyrights, etc) and financial issues \
(donations, server hardware) so that the codemonkey developers don't have \
to.</div><div><br></div><div>That is why I CCed the trustees when the logo stuff on \
third party sites came up. I don't think there's any conspiracy to keep the \
trustees in the dark, but I *do* perceive a lack of \
communication.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Plus, america is *notorious* for being a \
sue-happy litigious society. Even a completely baseless lawsuit against the \
foundation would probably cost money to defend against. I'll have my side rant \
about the american legal system later, but for the present topic at hand, I would \
very much like the trustees to at least be monitoring the situation.</div></div><div \
class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 2:24 PM, \
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:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc \
solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On 13/11/2016 20:26, Alec Warner wrote:<br> \
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 4:33 AM, Luca Barbato <<a \
href="mailto:lu_zero@gentoo.org">lu_zero@gentoo.org</a>><br> > wrote:<br>
><br>
>> 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>
>><br>
><br>
>> The foundation was made only to collect and redistribute money. In<br>
>> order to do that it was made sort of copyright collector as well<br>
>> (but that was actively blocked by the fact the EU law prevents<br>
>> that).<br>
>><br>
><br>
> What I think is actually true is that there are some risks the<br>
> current board sees, and they (we?, I am on the board after all) see<br>
> one way to reduce the risk is by this joining. I think we should also<br>
> be open to evaluating the risks and seeking other avenues to mitigate<br>
> them.<br>
><br>
> I think, speaking in general terms, one risk is the following.<br>
><br>
> 1) When a community member feels harmed by the community, they can<br>
> file a suit. They can sue individuals, or they can sue the<br>
> Foundation. They cannot sue "Comrel" for example, because Comrel \
is<br> > not an entity. They can sue the individuals that compose comrel, or<br>
> they can sue the Foundation.<br>
<br>
</span>One step back, if somebody with the Gentoo hat on (or off) does<br>
something horrible or creepy or in any way against our social contract<br>
or the code of conduct, we, as Gentoo, provide a point to complain so<br>
that the name of Gentoo is not tarnished by such actions.<br>
<br>
That point of complaint is currently Comrel.<br>
Comrel has to evaluate the situation at the best of the team's<br>
possibilities and in that specific case ask infra and the groups<br>
managing the communication channels to prevent that person to keep doing<br>
what's doing.<br>
That's not the primary activity of the team, but we had to manage that<br>
as well.<br>
<br>
If somebody feels wronged by Comrel proceedings there is the Council to<br>
appeal.<br>
<br>
After the Council the person feeling wronged can try to sue the person<br>
he thinks that wronged him assuming there is any legal leg to stand.<br>
<br>
The foundation is nowhere there as long:<br>
- the issue isn't about copyright, assuming the copyright had been<br>
misrelinquished to the foundation.<br>
- the issue is not mismanagement of money.<br>
- the issue is not cause by hardware owned by the foundation.<br>
<br>
The foundation does not hire anybody in Gentoo, the foundation has no<br>
liability for what people does as long it does not involves the 3 points<br>
above.<br>
<span class=""><br>
> 2) If they sue the Foundation, we are worried that a 100% hands-off<br>
> solution is going to be an effective defense. In the current scheme,<br>
> the Foundation has no real control over the operation of Comrel. I<br>
> think there is a lack of confidence that this defense is sufficient<br>
> to dismiss a suit though.<br>
<br>
</span>They cannot sue the foundation, the foundation does not have any link to<br>
the people, beside maybe providing hardware to few developers that<br>
needed it.<br>
<span class=""><br>
> So we discard that defense. What other defenses can we offer?<br>
><br>
> 1) We can move Comrel under the Foundation. That way we have<br>
> influence over their activities. We can create policies that provide<br>
> better legal defenses (like the Code of Conduct for instance) but<br>
> also many of the transparency policies you see on other threads.<br>
<br>
</span>You do not have the problem until you start hiring people.<br>
<span class=""><br>
> I think speaking more generally, you could replace "Comrel" with \
any<br> > Gentoo project. At the end of the day the Foundation holds all the<br>
> assets and pays all the bills. How do we mitigate the Foundation's<br>
> liability for the actions of volunteers in the project?<br>
<br>
</span>The foundation is not liable for any volunteers actions, bar the 3 cases<br>
I mentioned.<br>
<br>
lu<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic