[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:       Rich Freeman <rich0 () gentoo ! org>
Date:       2016-11-14 1:52:12
Message-ID: CAGfcS_mL-v9rnXaVSfNs4W_3YjDu6F73vr1m16uza7RUn4n-Aw () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 8:39 PM, Daniel Campbell <zlg@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> Outsourcing the foundation won't really solve any of the problems being
> discussed here, and adds the point of contention that (I would bet) many
> of us have to outsourcing Gentoo things, e.g. GitHub, et al. Outsourcing
> things gives outside parties influence for zero concrete contribution.
>

Well, this thread has gone so far off the rails that this really
depends on how you define "any of the problems being discussed here"
since at some point probably just about any concern anybody has with
Gentoo has probably come up.  :)

I don't think outsourcing the financials/compliance side would impact
Comrel governance, unless your proposed solution to Comrel governance
was to put it under the Foundation, since that wouldn't exist in such
a scenario.

It would potentially have the effect of reducing the number of
distinct governance bodies we have, which is a topic which has come
up.

But, I tend to be of the opinion that Gentoo's meta-structure and the
Comrel situation should probably be treated as separate matters, even
if there are some touchpoints.

I did actually find Alec's comment about SPI and Debian/etc
interesting.  I hadn't really given thought to what liability SPI has,
if any, for the conduct of Debian, if Debian isn't really a separate
legal entity.  I'd think that if SPI owns their servers, and their
servers are used to communicate things that are libelous, then SPI
probably would have liability.  It is probably worth looking at how
they (and other projects) handle this concern if only to generate some
ideas for us to consider, whether we ultimately go down the SPI road
or not.

One of the advantages of something like the SPI route is that they
probably have standardized policies around compliance issues that we
could just adopt wholesale, and they probably have professionals
backing all of them up (such as lawyers focused on FOSS and community
issues).

Now, as was pointed out an obvious disadvantage of going that route is
that you do lose some autonomy.  In fact once you give them any assets
they can only give them back to "you" if you have a 501c3, because
they are a 501c3.  Of course, assuming you're happy with them they
also give you the benefits of a 501c3 without the fuss of trying to
achieve that yourself.

-- 
Rich


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

Configure | About | News | Add a list | Sponsored by KoreLogic