Questions To Answer

[Alan Cox <alan lxorguk ukuu org uk>]

Ok quick 10 point summary from browsing the archive

0.	If your body is limited membership and contains all the core companies
	working on Gnome, sets policy and controls progress - isnt it a
	Cartel and therefore going to be very illegal if Gnome succeeds.
	In the US you need to set up the right kind of body for this. The
	LSB hit exactly this issue and you have to do things very carefully.
	
	It looks like someone is thinking here. Good. Have they talked with
	the LSB who just went through this same stuff ?

1.	If the foundation sets release dates does the US or the European one
	decide. What if they disagree. There are after all more of us than
	you. Perhaps we need an Asian one ?

2.	If the foundation sets release dates who is going to listen

3.	If the body is US based you need to budget for legal insurance
	covering everyone taking part in discussions.

4.	Collab.net is based in the USA. If we wish to involve europeans we
	must be sure that collab.net has an acceptable data protection
	policy. Brian I guess can provide a legally binding data protection
	agreement if collab.net are going to be hired for this.

5.	LWE is very US and very commercial. The board of directors should be
	put together electronically not according to who is at some crappy
	trade show.

6.	The idea that Gnome foundation europe is regional and the US one is 
	superior is to say the least offensive to the rest of the world. There 
	should be a US and EU and Asian body of equal importance.  You draw 
	your board from the three bodies in proportion to membership.

	Gnome US == Gnome EU == Gnome Asian == Gnome whatever

        The board elected across the three is what you need as your true
	board for big decisions.

	Don't make the thing US centric. Right now its implied that the US
	one is superior. Well there are more of us than you ;)

7.	Your view of the functions of gnome foundation wont work in places

	- development is not in control of anyone except those who do the work
	  Just ask the Debian people how much anyone actually listens to the
	  debian steering bodies

	- roadmaps depened on random people and random ideas. At best the
          body can wave its arms and guess where it is going. It can 
          definitely help on the API/ABI side.

        - a single developer site doesnt work. There are patent, legal and other
          issues preventing that. Not to mention that a single point of failure
          sucks. 

	You need to accept the role of the gnome foundation is to run after
	development attempting to guide it from the rear and coping with
	whatever random diversions it takes on the way. Think of it as trying
	to steer a runaway truck by hanging onto the back bumper [1]

8.	The LSB is turning into something intended to be an umbrella for more
	than just Linux standards. Someone should talk to Dan Quinlan and 
	figure out Gnomes relationship to the LSB. Including for example
	specifying binary ABI, compatibility paths for vendors using Gtk/Gnome.

9.	I'm very concerned that is all  Red Hat, Helix, Eazel, 'Mr X'. What
	the hell happened to Debian. The LSB made a special case for Debian,
	I think since Debian is a major Gnome 'reseller' the same has to be
	done here if the vendor members need to pay. Debian are not just part
	of 'the community' but something more.

Alan

[1] fender in the US sub body