9:58 p.m.
Hi Mark,
> > Now you might be right that some of the bigger GNU projects
might do
> > this individually. But I think those should pool together with some of
> > the smaller ones then, or maybe we should do it as GNU Assembly so
> > that those smaller ones who think they don't need any resources can
> > actually get them, because the infrastructure must actually exist and
> > must be resourced.
>
> Yes, though I think taking on this task and aiming for a solution at
> this point would not be prudent given the state of the GNU project as a
> whole. Is this really a problem we should take on *now*?
I think it depends on whether you believe the GNU Assembly should take
up more responsibilties for the community setting up new resources or
if we can keep relying on the FSF and the existing infrastructure
various GNU projects are using now.
I see what you mean. I think we should not rely on the FSF for
infrastructure. The unclear entanglement of FSF and GNU is one of the
sources of confusion and intransparency, so it seems prudent to avoid
this mistake.
So at the moment for gnu.tools Carlos deals with DNS and Andy makes
sure the machine that hosts the list and wiki is payed for. And that
is fine, I trust them to deal with that. But what if we want to extend
our resources, setup a pagure machine or get some sourcehut
maintenance contract? I am fine to pay for that personally. But it
would obviously be better if we had an actual legal entity be
responsible for it so that if any of us individuals has something else
to do the organisation still keeps running.
Yes, this makes sense.
[…] But I do think it is important to start thinking about it now
and
maybe start some discussion with some existing organisation like the
Conservancy to see if they can help us out. These things will take
months, so it might make sense to start the converstation early.
Right.
How do we decide the next steps? Is it premature to talk to the
Conservancy about whether they would be open to supporting a structure
where the GNU Assembly is not only a participating project but also an
umbrella organization for its member projects…? I’m not familiar enough
with SFC to understand if picking them as a legal home could send an
unintended message to onlookers (much like *not* picking the FSF could
be seen as disagreement with any of the things the FSF stands for).
If we merely want a legal entity for shared ownership of assets — would
something simpler (like Guix Europe) suffice?
--
Ricardo