[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:       2016-11-14 0:03:35
Message-ID: CAGDaZ_oWxjergGOTzx4wdtFgWOHjqMsv01J9Hp9zKdTMmGxEog () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 13/11/2016 23:33, Raymond Jennings wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I already enumerated the situations that would involve the foundation.
>
> On the contrary of companies that can be sued if somebody hired by them
> harasses or worse another person within the company, the foundation,
> being unrelated to the Gentoo community barring acting as a piggy bank,
> cannot be sued.
>
> There isn't any specific requirement for that and there isn't any
> contract that ties the people volunteering their free time to do
> something in Gentoo with the foundation (since the copyright assignment
> got killed as I mentioned before).
>

Ebuild headers would appear to say differently.  If the status quo has
changed this needs to be reflected in ebuild maintenance guidelines if it
hasn't already.

> 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.
>
> Even copyright is a gray area thanks to the fact a large deal of
> developers lives in Europe.
>
> > 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.
>
> The fact trustees have no mean to peek in / influence Council or Comrel
> shields the foundation from lawsuits.
>

A sort of "using plausible deniability" as a defense?

>
> lu
>
>

[Attachment #3 (text/html)]

<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 \
at 2:46 PM, Luca Barbato <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:lu_zero@gentoo.org" \
target="_blank">lu_zero@gentoo.org</a>&gt;</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 23:33, Raymond Jennings \
wrote:<br> &gt; My personal opinion here is that *anything* to do with legal \
issues,<br> &gt; such as legal liability, no matter how theoretical, is something \
the<br> &gt; trustees should be involved in.<br>
<br>
</span>I already enumerated the situations that would involve the foundation.<br>
<br>
On the contrary of companies that can be sued if somebody hired by them<br>
harasses or worse another person within the company, the foundation,<br>
being unrelated to the Gentoo community barring acting as a piggy bank,<br>
cannot be sued.<br>
<br>
There isn&#39;t any specific requirement for that and there isn&#39;t any<br>
contract that ties the people volunteering their free time to do<br>
something in Gentoo with the foundation (since the copyright assignment<br>
got killed as I mentioned before).<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Ebuild headers \
would appear to say differently.   If the status quo has changed this needs to be \
reflected in ebuild maintenance guidelines if it hasn&#39;t \
already.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 \
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">&gt; Per my own dev \
quiz, the foundation&#39;s job is to worry about legal<br> &gt; issues (lawsuits, \
copyrights, etc) and financial issues (donations,<br> &gt; server hardware) so that \
the codemonkey developers don&#39;t have to.<br> <br>
</span>Even copyright is a gray area thanks to the fact a large deal of<br>
developers lives in Europe.<br>
<span class=""><br>
&gt; That is why I CCed the trustees when the logo stuff on third party<br>
&gt; sites came up.   I don&#39;t think there&#39;s any conspiracy to keep the<br>
&gt; trustees in the dark, but I *do* perceive a lack of communication.<br>
<br>
</span>The fact trustees have no mean to peek in / influence Council or Comrel<br>
shields the foundation from lawsuits.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>A sort of \
&quot;using plausible deniability&quot; as a defense?  </div><blockquote \
class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc \
solid;padding-left:1ex"> <br>
lu<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>



[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]