Re: Foundation summary

Havoc Pennington wrote:

> Yes, this is one reason. You can't donate to a company. And if you
> could, it wouldn't be tax-deductible, and there wouldn't be
> accountability as to who the money goes to.
> We need to buy a new * server, for example.

As far as I can tell, this is *the* reason.  I can understand a need for
a checking account somewhere to accept charitable donations.  Providing
public resources for the advancement and distribution of GNOME software
is of obvious benefit to the project, especially if the companies that
are making money off of GNOME aren't willing or able to continue to
provide such resources.  Is this something that needs a board plus a
corporate advisory panel to carry out?    
> The foundation lets the community get in on this process, because we
> can have community members on the board, and the board can talk to
> companies. It's better than the current situation; at least your
> representatives will be elected.

As opposed to entitled, based on the piles of righteous code or chapters
of riveting documentation they've contributed?    

Companies like talking to companies.  They have a mutual interest:
making money.  I don't believe this is a primary motivator of the GNOME
community at large.  
> The steering committee IMO has done a lot of good to improve
> communication and coordination. The foundation's board won't be any
> better than the steering committee, but it will be elected, which will
> hopefully make people feel a lot better about it.

Who are these people who need to feel better, and why are they whining
about direction being set by some of the core contributors of the
> I would hope that you try to work with the group already, and will
> continue to do that after the foundation is created. 

Of course this is exactly what I tried to convey.  I was trying to
express that a meritocracy-based steering committee without a 10 page
charter is already accomplishing this focusing aspect.  

> I'd like to see the board come in at the end of some of the long
> flamefests we have about something like a release date, and say "OK,
> what we got out of that was <whatever>, this is the current plan."
> They'd sort of make the official call on what the consensus was, so we
> know what it was we actually agreed on.

And we need a panel of nine elite hacker dudes, duly elected by the
membership, in consultation with a corporate advisory committee for this
sort of closure?  :-)

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]