Re: [RFC] Allow fd.o to join forces with X.Org

From: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter-/w4YWyX8dFk@public.gmane.org>
To: Daniel Stone <daniel-rLtY4a/8tF1rovVCs/uTlw@public.gmane.org>
Cc: "X.Org development"
	<xorg-devel-go0+a7rfsptAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org>,
	dri-devel
	<dri-devel-PD4FTy7X32lNgt0PjOBp9y5qC8QIuHrW@public.gmane.org>,
	wayland
	<wayland-devel-PD4FTy7X32lNgt0PjOBp9y5qC8QIuHrW@public.gmane.org>,
	Xorg Members List <members@x.org>,
	Mesa Dev
	<mesa-dev-PD4FTy7X32lNgt0PjOBp9y5qC8QIuHrW@public.gmane.org>,
	xorg-CC+yJ3UmIYqDUpFQwHEjaQ@public.gmane.org, "Wentland,
	Harry" <harry.wentland-5C7GfCeVMHo@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Allow fd.o to join forces with X.Org
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 14:37:25 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKMK7uHoOqC7hH9PemUDuzU8Nmuo7hDij+PTGdiBJH_AQcsqvg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPj87rOHt5HumtTZp8FDoH_R_SPAnx6jMLuMkrNY_mfa+Z_Y=g@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 2:05 PM Daniel Stone <daniel@fooishbar.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 at 08:17, Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 10:49:24AM -0400, Harry Wentland wrote:
> > > +     \item Support free and open source projects through the freedesktop.org
> > > +     infrastructure. For projects outside the scope of item (\ref{1}) support
> > > +     extends to project hosting only.
> > > +
> >
> > Yes to the idea but given that the remaining 11 pages cover all the legalese
> > for xorg I think we need to add at least a section of what "project hosting"
> > means. Even if it's just a "includes but is not limited to blah".  And some
> > addition to 4.1 Powers is needed to spell out what the BoD can do in regards
> > to fdo.
>
> Yeah, I think it makes sense. Some things we do:
>   - provide hosted network services for collaborative development,
> testing, and discussion, of open-source projects
>   - administer, improve, and extend this suite of services as necessary
>   - assist open-source projects in their use of these services
>   - purchase, lease, or subscribe to, computing and networking
> infrastructure allowing these services to be run

I fully agree that we should document all this. I don't think the
bylaws are the right place though, much better to put that into
policies that the board approves and which can be adapted as needed.
Imo bylaws should cover the high-level mission and procedural details,
as our "constitution", with the really high acceptance criteria of
2/3rd of all members approving any changes. Some of the early
discussions tried to spell out a lot of the fd.o policies in bylaw
changes, but then we realized it's all there already. All the details
are much better served in policies enacted by the board, like we do
with everything else.

As an example, let's look at XDC. Definitely one of the biggest things
the foundation does, with handling finances, travel sponsoring grants,
papers committee, and acquiring lots of sponsors. None of this is
spelled out in the bylaws, it's all in policies that the board
deliberates and approves. I think this same approach will also work
well for fd.o.

And if members are unhappy with what the board does, they can fix in
the next election by throwing out the unwanted directors.

Thanks, Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development
Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel
Info: https://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel