Hi, On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 11:57, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 10:13:51AM +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 02:37:25PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 2:05 PM Daniel Stone <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > yeah, fair call. though IMO in that case we can just reduce to > > > > \item Support free and open source projects through the freedesktop.org > > infrastructure. > > > > because my gripe is less with the fdo bit but more with defining what > > "project hosting" means, given that we use that term to exclude fdo projects > > from getting anything else. I think just dropping that bit is sufficient. > > Hm yeah, through the lens of "everything not explicitly listed isn't in > scope as X.org's purpose", leaving this out is probably clearest. And > under 2.4 (i) the board already has the duty to interpret what exactly > this means wrt membership eligibility. > > Harry, Daniel, what do you think? Yeah, that's fine. I didn't specifically want the enumerated list of what we do in the bylaws, just spelling it out for background as a handy reference I could point to later. I think maybe we could reduce it to something like: Administer, support, and improve the freedesktop.org hosting infrastructure to support the projects it hosts Gives us enough scope to grow in the future (e.g. we don't need a bylaws change to move from pure-git to GitLab), avoids the sticky question of what exactly fd.o hosts in the bylaws (e.g. if NetworkManager needs a new repo then we don't have to consult membership to add it), but is still pretty firmly limited in scope. Any of the above have my in-principle ack though, I think they're all reasonable colours for our lovely shed. Cheers, Daniel _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
