5 ms·

Does this mean that Linux Foundation has ultimate control of the foundation?

by Touche 7y ago

rectang 7y ago
Governance can be set up in a number of ways, depending on the charter, with power allocated to different stakeholders in different configurations. See slide 42 from Chris's presentation. As a Rust user, I would follow the creation of such a charter with great interest. https://www.slideshare.net/caniszczyk/bringing-an-open-source-project-to-the-linux-foundation-206551742/42 https://www.slideshare.net/caniszczyk/bringing-an-open-sourc... Moving away from Mozilla, regardless of destination, presents an opportunity for the most powerful stakeholders within the community to exert greater influence, many of whom I would be less comfortable with than Mozilla.
- Touche 7y ago
  To be honest I don't know what this means. I was expected a yes or no answer. Does the Linux Foundation have final say over the organization or does its members?
  - rectang 7y ago
    Projects can be set up so that one entity (possibly a company which is a Linux Foundation Member) exerts dominant influence. This is one reason that many companies are comfortable bringing projects to the LF — and that's arguably better on balance for the Open Source ecosystem than them keeping those projects in-house and their governance murky. Rust, though, is already at Mozilla, whose influence seems to be benign. I'm curious, which Mozilla entity holds the trademark: is it the 501(c)(3) Mozilla Foundation, or is it their for-profit subsidiary, the Mozilla Corporation?
    - steveklabnik 7y ago
      > I'm curious, which Mozilla entity holds the trademark: is it the 501(c)(3) Mozilla Foundation, or is it their for-profit subsidiary, the Mozilla Corporation? I never thought about this, but TESS says it's Moco, which is what I'd expect.
      - rectang 7y ago
        I wonder if it's reasonable to donate that trademark to the 501(c)(3) Mozilla Foundation and to then formalize a charter laying out Rust governance. For what it's worth I would have greater confidence in such an arrangement than I would in a 501(c)(6) Business League version of a Rust Foundation, which would in my view undermine independence.
        steveklabnik 7y ago
        I don't think that helps accomplish one of the main goals of this effort, which is to demonstrate independence.

Does this mean that Linux Foundation has ultimate control of the foundation?

by Touche 7y ago

Does this mean that Linux Foundation has ultimate control of the foundation?

Governance can be set up in a number of ways, depending on the charter, with power allocated to different stakeholders in different configurations. See slide 42 from Chris's presentation. As a Rust user, I would follow the creation of such a charter with great interest. https://www.slideshare.net/caniszczyk/bringing-an-open-source-project-to-the-linux-foundation-206551742/42 https://www.slideshare.net/caniszczyk/bringing-an-open-sourc... Moving away from Mozilla, regardless of destination, presents an opportunity for the most powerful stakeholders within the community to exert greater influence, many of whom I would be less comfortable with than Mozilla.

Touche 7y ago
To be honest I don't know what this means. I was expected a yes or no answer. Does the Linux Foundation have final say over the organization or does its members?
- rectang 7y ago
  Projects can be set up so that one entity (possibly a company which is a Linux Foundation Member) exerts dominant influence. This is one reason that many companies are comfortable bringing projects to the LF — and that's arguably better on balance for the Open Source ecosystem than them keeping those projects in-house and their governance murky. Rust, though, is already at Mozilla, whose influence seems to be benign. I'm curious, which Mozilla entity holds the trademark: is it the 501(c)(3) Mozilla Foundation, or is it their for-profit subsidiary, the Mozilla Corporation?
  - steveklabnik 7y ago
    > I'm curious, which Mozilla entity holds the trademark: is it the 501(c)(3) Mozilla Foundation, or is it their for-profit subsidiary, the Mozilla Corporation? I never thought about this, but TESS says it's Moco, which is what I'd expect.
    - rectang 7y ago
      I wonder if it's reasonable to donate that trademark to the 501(c)(3) Mozilla Foundation and to then formalize a charter laying out Rust governance. For what it's worth I would have greater confidence in such an arrangement than I would in a 501(c)(6) Business League version of a Rust Foundation, which would in my view undermine independence.
      - steveklabnik 7y ago
        I don't think that helps accomplish one of the main goals of this effort, which is to demonstrate independence.