Re: steering committee vs foundation

[Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com>]

I guess that this can be referred as the Debian model, since this 
setup (except for the possibility of regional foundations), somewhat
resembles the relationship between Debian (unincorporated, but
with bylaws), and SPI.

But, I'm confused. I thought that what people were saying is that the
organization that was doing the technical leadership had to be set up
with legal care to avoid anti-trust problems.  I don't see how this
proposal fits that thought, since the steering committee would not be
an incorporated body.

It also seems to me that having two foundations here is rather
unwieldy. The more we can keep organizations, boards, elections, etc,
to a minimum, the easier our life will be. Debian/SPI definitely has a
problem with too many of these things. And from the position of an
external observer, the number of problems that have come up with
organization in the Debian/SPI seems to be much higher than
in other free software entities.

I really don't see a problem with a US-incorporated foundation
with world-wide membership. There are a long list of organizations
that do that - Apache, XFree86, etc.

[..]
 
> 2- Gnome Foundation (USA):
> ------------------------
> The Gnome Foundation we are creating in the US would have a board of
> directors that is self-appointed (much in the way most non-profit boards
> are appointed and just like many of the standards bodies).  The board
> would include a balance of Gnome hackers, including several members of
> the Gnome Steering Commitee (including the Chair of the Steering
> Committee), and corporate representatives.  The Foundation would be the
> main forum where corporations who are interested in Gnome get to talk
> among themselves and with representatives of the Steering Committee
> about the technical direction of Gnome.  The Foundation would also focus
> on promoting Gnome, setting up technical conferences etc.  The
> Foundation would have paying corporate members.  There could also be
> Gnome Foundations in Europe, Asia or where ever.

But unless the way corporations, in practice, interact with GNOME
is to interact directly with the technical people - to have their
employees becomes part of the community - then we've failed.
If we just mean companies shipping apps against GNOME, then
maybe interacting through some intermediary would work. But
I think we are talking about actual technical collaboration.

I don't see how we can have an organization that doesn't include
the GNOME hackers which would be a main forum for any sort
of discussions of GNOME. We can't have "corporate discussion
of GNOME" be held separate from other discussions of GNOME.
If the corporate discussions have any effect on the technical
direction of GNOME, then they have to be with some body that
really represents GNOME. 

Regards,
                                        Owen