Re: Questions To Answer

[Bart Decrem <bart eazel com>]

It seems to me that there are two fundamental issues that need to be
resolved:

1- How do we make sure that the Governance of Gnome properly reflects the
truly international nature of the project.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think we need to see if we can find ways to not have the power (such as
it is) of the foundation lay with a US legal entity.  Perhaps the way Alan
suggests is the right way to go and we should take another look at a model
where Gnome Foundations are legal entities that promote, market and are
meeting spaces for Gnome in specific regions.  The boards of those
foundations could be appointed as apposed to elected.  And then there could
be a steering committee that is not attached to a legal entity, and that is
elected by all the members of the Gnome community and that is worldwide in
composition and influence.  So the steering committee would then do release
coordination etc.

2- How do we provide opportunities for key corporate partners to embrace
Gnome and have a voice in the project.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are some key corporate partners (and I'm not thinking about Helix
Code or Eazel or Red Hat) who may want to throw their support behind Gnome,
but they want to know (1) that there's some body that can speak on behalf
of Gnome and (2) that there's a forum where their voice can be heard and
they can have *some* input in discussions over the direction of the
project.

Perhaps the structure I propose above addresses both needs.  Their could be
corporate representatives on the board of directors of the US Gnome
Foundation, so they would have a seat at the table, so to speak, without
being in a position where they have an undue voice in setting the technical
direction of Gnome.

Also, there's been a ton of useful references to other governance models,
including Apache, Debian, LSB, IETF and the W3C.  I think we need to put
together a document that gives a basic summary a how these and other
projects are governed - that'll give us a better perspective to resolve the
2 key issues outlined above.  I've asked Rob at Collab.net to lend a hand
with that.  Hopefully we'll be able to send something out on that later
this week.  Meanwhile, if you have a decent knowledge about how a relevant
entity operates, could you send a brief write-up to me so I can include
it.  I'd like to include brief descriptions of:
- Debian
- Apache
- LSB
- IETF
- W3C
- Linux kernel
- Linux International
- KDE
- SPI
- ??

Bart


Havoc Pennington wrote:

> Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> writes:
> > > Red Cross that the UN has specifically written a treaty for or
> > > something. So, if you have a better idea, then give it - but there's
> > > really no alternative here. Foundations have to be in some nation.
> >
> > So why pick the USA with its infamously hazardous legal situation ?
> >
>
> Bart can maybe explain. I imagine it's because the
> board-as-legal-entity is for the benefit of companies, and all the
> interested companies so far are in the US.
>
> Havoc
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-list mailing list
> foundation-list@gnome.org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list