I have to agree with ttuuxx. If I invested the time and effort needed to advance a distro, or similar project, only to have it taken away by a team and given to someone else, I think I'd end up wondering why I was fool enough to take it on in the first place.
Just my two pennies worth.
Establishing a formal community
@Tombh, Point taken ! I think I jumped in there a little eagerly without researching some of the links thoroughly enough.
Meaning no disrespect to Lobster, I envisioned the "meeting" would be "live" - ie over VOIP or live chat. The theory being that this would enable the interested parties to quickly bash out the basic ideology behind the thread and possibly create agreement on other relavant "spin off" subjects which should fall into their own topics for subsequent and separate discussion. I'm not sure if you've tried before, but the realities behind a live meeting with the time zone spreads of interested parties and their other commitments probably makes this idea impractical.
As you say though, there is no urgency. It's difficult to reply further without overly detracting further from the thread.
Cheers, Adam.
Meaning no disrespect to Lobster, I envisioned the "meeting" would be "live" - ie over VOIP or live chat. The theory being that this would enable the interested parties to quickly bash out the basic ideology behind the thread and possibly create agreement on other relavant "spin off" subjects which should fall into their own topics for subsequent and separate discussion. I'm not sure if you've tried before, but the realities behind a live meeting with the time zone spreads of interested parties and their other commitments probably makes this idea impractical.
As you say though, there is no urgency. It's difficult to reply further without overly detracting further from the thread.
Cheers, Adam.
Live meetings on IRC have been conducted in the past with varying degrees of success. You're right about scheduling woes with world-wide community members - heh.
[size=84][i]hangout:[/i] ##b0rked on irc.freenode.net
[i]diversion:[/i] [url]http://alienjeff.net[/url] - visit The Fringe
[i]quote:[/i] "The foundation of authority is based upon the consent of the people." - Thomas Hooker[/size]
[i]diversion:[/i] [url]http://alienjeff.net[/url] - visit The Fringe
[i]quote:[/i] "The foundation of authority is based upon the consent of the people." - Thomas Hooker[/size]
*meetings* on IRC are a joke (I was able to attend one a long long time ago...).... as much time as a puppy developer spends developing puppy if they really want to be a team they ought to be on there when ever they can.... which circumvents most of the timing issues
also if you talk to people regularly you get to know them and their ideas naturally instead of in a meeting where there are likely to be missunderstandings
also if you talk to people regularly you get to know them and their ideas naturally instead of in a meeting where there are likely to be missunderstandings
Taking Puppy Linux to the limit of perfection. meanwhile try "puppy pfix=duct_tape" kernel parem eater.
X86: Sager NP6110 3630QM 16GB ram, Tyan Thunder 2 2x 300Mhz
Sun: SS2 , LX , SS5 , SS10 , SS20 ,Ultra 1, Ultra 10 , T2000
Mac: Platinum Plus, SE/30
X86: Sager NP6110 3630QM 16GB ram, Tyan Thunder 2 2x 300Mhz
Sun: SS2 , LX , SS5 , SS10 , SS20 ,Ultra 1, Ultra 10 , T2000
Mac: Platinum Plus, SE/30
@cb88
I thought you were on a ttuuxxx-ese vacation induced by a drama-rama overdose?
I thought you were on a ttuuxxx-ese vacation induced by a drama-rama overdose?
[size=84][i]hangout:[/i] ##b0rked on irc.freenode.net
[i]diversion:[/i] [url]http://alienjeff.net[/url] - visit The Fringe
[i]quote:[/i] "The foundation of authority is based upon the consent of the people." - Thomas Hooker[/size]
[i]diversion:[/i] [url]http://alienjeff.net[/url] - visit The Fringe
[i]quote:[/i] "The foundation of authority is based upon the consent of the people." - Thomas Hooker[/size]
yep.... the metal relief was so great i had to come back for more... 
posting this from slitaz... which is hitting the nail on the head for me ... the even have lowram install disks for as low as 16mb or was it 8 i assume that is console only and yes it is fun as it should be just as puppy was for me untlill it had to go and become a formal project
from what i can tell slitaz is a formal project.... but it seems the internals are simpler similar to unipup?
in any case i said count me out of development and that i would still be around as you see here
posting this from slitaz... which is hitting the nail on the head for me ... the even have lowram install disks for as low as 16mb or was it 8 i assume that is console only and yes it is fun as it should be just as puppy was for me untlill it had to go and become a formal project
from what i can tell slitaz is a formal project.... but it seems the internals are simpler similar to unipup?
in any case i said count me out of development and that i would still be around as you see here
Taking Puppy Linux to the limit of perfection. meanwhile try "puppy pfix=duct_tape" kernel parem eater.
X86: Sager NP6110 3630QM 16GB ram, Tyan Thunder 2 2x 300Mhz
Sun: SS2 , LX , SS5 , SS10 , SS20 ,Ultra 1, Ultra 10 , T2000
Mac: Platinum Plus, SE/30
X86: Sager NP6110 3630QM 16GB ram, Tyan Thunder 2 2x 300Mhz
Sun: SS2 , LX , SS5 , SS10 , SS20 ,Ultra 1, Ultra 10 , T2000
Mac: Platinum Plus, SE/30
@Aitch:
@tronkel: I'm inclined to agree with you, that without someone like Barry, we just won't be able to climb the huge mountain that is the modern operating system. But. Here is the million dollar question; what exactly does Barry mean by? --
Oh dear, I'm about to go into rant mode!
What is the 'likely' bit dependant on? Would he be swayed by a formal community or an informal community? Would he be prepared to meet the criteria we set for members to be able to access our SVN? Or more likely do we just follow his lead as we've always done before. We can't rule him completely out of the picture can we? But then at the same time, it's hard to really feel that he's interested in 'our' Puppy. The strange thing is that if we, in our hypothetical member-based community, had a developer that didn't seem that interested in the project, then one would wonder whether he/she should be considered a member.
If we end up just following UniPup instead of the old Puppy then what's changed? Not much. Barry's still basically leader, because no-one can really replace him, and who'd want to if he's maintaining a working ISO? Okay, so the boot scripts will be subtly different, it will be geared towards set hardware and the release cycle will be slower. So Barry either retires or he doesn't. He can't do both! I think he just needs to be honest. I think he just wants to get on with his own project at his own pace, which he's quite entitled to. But it does seem like he's getting his cake and eating it. Therefore, going through the motions of helping the community, but without actually getting involved. As I say, that's totally fine if he doesn't want to have anything to do with the community (it's quite understandable!), but leaving us guessing and squabbling as we humbly bow to his pace can only go on so long before some of us begin to ask questions.
Okay, rant over. Sorry to talk about you like that Barry
@ttuuuxx: Thanks for your comments. It's great to hear your thoughts. I never expected everyone to agree with me. Hearing the other side of the argument helps me (and everyone else) see things from a bit more of a broader perspective. And so not got so lost in single-track ways of thinking.
@Pizzasgood: This idea of teams is an interesting one, certainly the kind of thing we could implement with the Secondary rules. Yeah, and allowing people just to change minor details without any bureaucracy is a must. Perhaps there should be a mechanism whereby, if there is any controversy/disagreement in a change someone makes then we can hold a vote to ratify that change? Like you say, "if they can't agree then get formal".
@pigshed: No worries. Please don't let fear of veering off-topic stop you from posting though! About the VOIP/IRC thing, I'm a big fan of VOIP, it is so much easier to communicate and gauge someone's feelings by hearing their voice. I'm remember the first time I did it with Eric (Caneri), I was so nervous, but after a while the familiarity of voice (as opposed to reading someone's text) makes one fel a lot more at ease. I have been part of some VOIP conferences here on Puppy with varying degrees of success. However, the idea of using it as a means to conduct formal meetings might be quite difficult. Skype definitely has the best call quality for conferencing but can only be used by broadband users. Gizmo can be used on dial-up but the conferencing facility is almost unusable beyond 3 people. Not to mention the problem of a 24 hour planet! So I certainly think there is a place for it and would very much encourage those working closely together to use it as much as they can.
This is actually something I discussed at the CDA meeting I mentioned in the opening post of this thread. Basically a Primary rule is that meetings must be advertised to all members in advance and specified to occur on a fixed date for a given length of time. This is simply to ensure that all members are offered the opportunity to take part in discussions and decisions equally and fairly without discrimination. So what they said is that there would be no problem with holding a meeting for 24 hours and for votes to be cast electronically on that date. A forum/IRC/VOIP could be used in the days/weeks beforehand to thrash out the issues and the actual decision making process can occur on the set date.
So it's possible, but how it would actually work out in reality is another question!
Yeah it's hard isn't! trying to figure out 'where it's at'. You just have to keep an eye on the recent forum post titles and try and keep up to date, it can take a fair bit of time.trying to find out if we are 'all present, at the same time, focussed on the same thing, and making progress, ultimately to an 'understanding' or as I prefer an overstanding, when you tower over 'the problem', realizing that it wasn't that big of a deal.....
That's good to hear, as you can see from my sentiments in the 'appeal to Barry', I greatly value the role of community and think that community developer could be as significant a role as technical developer.so community development appeals to me and I'll do what I can
@tronkel: I'm inclined to agree with you, that without someone like Barry, we just won't be able to climb the huge mountain that is the modern operating system. But. Here is the million dollar question; what exactly does Barry mean by? --
It is likely that I will keep working on some aspects of the "core" or "base" Puppy, primarily for my puplet but that will be useful for the mainstream Puppy.
Oh dear, I'm about to go into rant mode!
What is the 'likely' bit dependant on? Would he be swayed by a formal community or an informal community? Would he be prepared to meet the criteria we set for members to be able to access our SVN? Or more likely do we just follow his lead as we've always done before. We can't rule him completely out of the picture can we? But then at the same time, it's hard to really feel that he's interested in 'our' Puppy. The strange thing is that if we, in our hypothetical member-based community, had a developer that didn't seem that interested in the project, then one would wonder whether he/she should be considered a member.
If we end up just following UniPup instead of the old Puppy then what's changed? Not much. Barry's still basically leader, because no-one can really replace him, and who'd want to if he's maintaining a working ISO? Okay, so the boot scripts will be subtly different, it will be geared towards set hardware and the release cycle will be slower. So Barry either retires or he doesn't. He can't do both! I think he just needs to be honest. I think he just wants to get on with his own project at his own pace, which he's quite entitled to. But it does seem like he's getting his cake and eating it. Therefore, going through the motions of helping the community, but without actually getting involved. As I say, that's totally fine if he doesn't want to have anything to do with the community (it's quite understandable!), but leaving us guessing and squabbling as we humbly bow to his pace can only go on so long before some of us begin to ask questions.
Okay, rant over. Sorry to talk about you like that Barry
@ttuuuxx: Thanks for your comments. It's great to hear your thoughts. I never expected everyone to agree with me. Hearing the other side of the argument helps me (and everyone else) see things from a bit more of a broader perspective. And so not got so lost in single-track ways of thinking.
@Pizzasgood: This idea of teams is an interesting one, certainly the kind of thing we could implement with the Secondary rules. Yeah, and allowing people just to change minor details without any bureaucracy is a must. Perhaps there should be a mechanism whereby, if there is any controversy/disagreement in a change someone makes then we can hold a vote to ratify that change? Like you say, "if they can't agree then get formal".
@pigshed: No worries. Please don't let fear of veering off-topic stop you from posting though! About the VOIP/IRC thing, I'm a big fan of VOIP, it is so much easier to communicate and gauge someone's feelings by hearing their voice. I'm remember the first time I did it with Eric (Caneri), I was so nervous, but after a while the familiarity of voice (as opposed to reading someone's text) makes one fel a lot more at ease. I have been part of some VOIP conferences here on Puppy with varying degrees of success. However, the idea of using it as a means to conduct formal meetings might be quite difficult. Skype definitely has the best call quality for conferencing but can only be used by broadband users. Gizmo can be used on dial-up but the conferencing facility is almost unusable beyond 3 people. Not to mention the problem of a 24 hour planet! So I certainly think there is a place for it and would very much encourage those working closely together to use it as much as they can.
This is actually something I discussed at the CDA meeting I mentioned in the opening post of this thread. Basically a Primary rule is that meetings must be advertised to all members in advance and specified to occur on a fixed date for a given length of time. This is simply to ensure that all members are offered the opportunity to take part in discussions and decisions equally and fairly without discrimination. So what they said is that there would be no problem with holding a meeting for 24 hours and for votes to be cast electronically on that date. A forum/IRC/VOIP could be used in the days/weeks beforehand to thrash out the issues and the actual decision making process can occur on the set date.
So it's possible, but how it would actually work out in reality is another question!
[url=http://www.tombh.co.uk/colour_memories/contribute.php]Colour-Memories Database[/url]
@tombh
re your last comment, maybe HairyWill would be willing to be communications co-ordinator?,
as he did most work, I think, on pjsip
I had computer crashing at the end of that phase, so sort of missed out on the conference attempt - how was it/many attended?
maybe a poll/headcount of working pjsip users?
I had 2 successes [Jay & Irihapeti] and 3 failures tombh, Lobster, & Eric - one way only - from a win2k box/none from puppy2.14
I like pizzasgood's ideas/tombh's 'management' - directed @ posts
Aitch
re your last comment, maybe HairyWill would be willing to be communications co-ordinator?,
as he did most work, I think, on pjsip
I had computer crashing at the end of that phase, so sort of missed out on the conference attempt - how was it/many attended?
maybe a poll/headcount of working pjsip users?
I had 2 successes [Jay & Irihapeti] and 3 failures tombh, Lobster, & Eric - one way only - from a win2k box/none from puppy2.14
I like pizzasgood's ideas/tombh's 'management' - directed @ posts
Aitch
formal organization
A formal organization for Puppy Linux is needed - that is beyond doubt. An entity has to represent the knowledge base unique to the distro and act as formal channel of communication between the developers and the public.
The first step in the formal process is drafting of the articles of incorporation and the by-laws. But for now the question is, should it be a coop or another form of organization?
We already know one foremost rule of the Puppy Linux community, that one's stature is based on merit (this can be used as criterion for membership in the formal organization). Perhaps we can ask Barry for some other rule/s that he wants the organization to follow.
The first step in the formal process is drafting of the articles of incorporation and the by-laws. But for now the question is, should it be a coop or another form of organization?
This observation is accurate, and by not being committed to a formal community, Barry essentially reserves for himself "veto power", for example, if what he sees forming is outside his expectations.Tombh: So Barry either retires or he doesn't. He can't do both! I think he just needs to be honest. I think he just wants to get on with his own project at his own pace, which he's quite entitled to.
We already know one foremost rule of the Puppy Linux community, that one's stature is based on merit (this can be used as criterion for membership in the formal organization). Perhaps we can ask Barry for some other rule/s that he wants the organization to follow.
Puppy user since Oct 2004. Want FreeOffice? [url=http://puppylinux.info/topic/freeoffice-2012-sfs]Get the sfs (English only)[/url].
-
Pizzasgood
- Posts: 6183
- Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 20:28
- Location: Knoxville, TN, USA
Looks like Barry's busy studying up on all the stuff we've been ranting and raving about for the last couple months.
I feel sorry for the poor guy.
Re: voip: I've never used any voip before. Do they have some kind of indicator to tell you who it is that's speaking? Obviously it can't say which voice is which, but maybe turn on a light next to a name when that person speaks?
I ask because otherwise it might be hard to keep track of who is saying what, by voice alone. The wide geographic distribution we have would help (many different dialects) but some kind of built-in identification would still be nice.
I think we'll have to use a mix of real-time stuff (e.g. IRC and VoIP) and forum threads, depending on what will be discussed. The forum is nice because you have time to pull your thoughts together, write them, reshape them, and otherwise craft something worth posting. But it's so much slower than real-time. And certain things are much much simpler in real-time. Such as figuring out which aspects of a train of logic a person has issues with. You can go step by step and get immediate feedback.
Also, for "official" meetings, somebody will need to record the meeting so that it can be transcribed. Maybe also save and post the recording itself, because listening to it could convey much more meaning and depth than the words. Like the strength of an opinion, or how serious a suggestion was. And you can listen to the recording while you do something else (exercise, homework, whatever) instead of having to read the whole thing. Saves some time, and gives you something worth listening to while you do the mundane things.
I feel sorry for the poor guy.
Re: voip: I've never used any voip before. Do they have some kind of indicator to tell you who it is that's speaking? Obviously it can't say which voice is which, but maybe turn on a light next to a name when that person speaks?
I ask because otherwise it might be hard to keep track of who is saying what, by voice alone. The wide geographic distribution we have would help (many different dialects) but some kind of built-in identification would still be nice.
I think we'll have to use a mix of real-time stuff (e.g. IRC and VoIP) and forum threads, depending on what will be discussed. The forum is nice because you have time to pull your thoughts together, write them, reshape them, and otherwise craft something worth posting. But it's so much slower than real-time. And certain things are much much simpler in real-time. Such as figuring out which aspects of a train of logic a person has issues with. You can go step by step and get immediate feedback.
Also, for "official" meetings, somebody will need to record the meeting so that it can be transcribed. Maybe also save and post the recording itself, because listening to it could convey much more meaning and depth than the words. Like the strength of an opinion, or how serious a suggestion was. And you can listen to the recording while you do something else (exercise, homework, whatever) instead of having to read the whole thing. Saves some time, and gives you something worth listening to while you do the mundane things.
Last edited by Pizzasgood on Wed 15 Oct 2008, 03:42, edited 1 time in total.
-
Lobster
- Official Crustacean
- Posts: 15522
- Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 06:06
- Location: Paradox Realm
- Contact:
Perhaps.Do more developers not mean rather more management?
At some point, someone who is able and willing and has the time, will offer or be nominated to put together the first Alpha of 4.2 based on what Barry releases as 4.1.1
They will not be a committee, co-op or foundation but a developer.
(who knew that)
Any other developer, individual, organization or management can then decide how best to support that person
We can nominate MU, Barry, Warren (whoDo), Nathan, Hacao, Sigmund, Dougal, John Murga, Pizzasgood, HairyWill, Tombh, Raffy etc as much as we want as developers for the next Puppy 4.2
.
If they are willing and able, we can support them.
Any developers producing patches upgrades etc make code available.
Developers produce distros.
I will be quite happy to support a co-op or other initiative but I will offer more support to an able developer of 4.2
I am sure we all will.
Anyone up for it?
I would not be a good choice, at least not as a "lead developer".
Reason: I have different needs to a system.
Puppy is optimized for very old hardware, for speed.
Muppy is fast, too, but not so optimized. Instead, it is prepared to serve more general purposes.
E.g. dbus/hal/udev slow down the start of Muppy. But as they are part of the system, it becomes very easy to use KDE or Gnome in addition, that rely on them.
So Muppy will keep that, while Puppy uses Barrys new optimized uevent system.
It would consume too much time, to manage two systems with such a different focus.
I will however try to contribute to Puppy in the "Puppy spirit", but will not be a developer with continuous reliability - I do not have enough time for that.
One example is the new Kernel 2.6.27.
I tried to document very detailed what I did, to get it working in Puppy 4.1, and I created a test iso.
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=34341
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=34186
I chose Puppy, not Muppy, so that the experiences I've made, can be used by the Puppy community, to update Puppy on their own with a new Kernel.
People now could test it, and start to compile more wifi modules.
Now that it seems to work well, I will go and continue to integrate this solution in Muppy, too.
Also in future, I will continue like this.
Do basic work in Puppy, and then migrate it to Muppy.
This will allow Muppy to stay compatible with Puppy, and give the community back things, as Muppy also "takes" very much from Puppy.
And of course I will continue to nag you concerning localization.
Puppy 4.1 has no gxmessage, so the dialogs can not display chinese tztztz...
Mark
Reason: I have different needs to a system.
Puppy is optimized for very old hardware, for speed.
Muppy is fast, too, but not so optimized. Instead, it is prepared to serve more general purposes.
E.g. dbus/hal/udev slow down the start of Muppy. But as they are part of the system, it becomes very easy to use KDE or Gnome in addition, that rely on them.
So Muppy will keep that, while Puppy uses Barrys new optimized uevent system.
It would consume too much time, to manage two systems with such a different focus.
I will however try to contribute to Puppy in the "Puppy spirit", but will not be a developer with continuous reliability - I do not have enough time for that.
One example is the new Kernel 2.6.27.
I tried to document very detailed what I did, to get it working in Puppy 4.1, and I created a test iso.
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=34341
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=34186
I chose Puppy, not Muppy, so that the experiences I've made, can be used by the Puppy community, to update Puppy on their own with a new Kernel.
People now could test it, and start to compile more wifi modules.
Now that it seems to work well, I will go and continue to integrate this solution in Muppy, too.
Also in future, I will continue like this.
Do basic work in Puppy, and then migrate it to Muppy.
This will allow Muppy to stay compatible with Puppy, and give the community back things, as Muppy also "takes" very much from Puppy.
And of course I will continue to nag you concerning localization.
Puppy 4.1 has no gxmessage, so the dialogs can not display chinese tztztz...
Mark
[url=http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=173456#173456]my recommended links[/url]
-
divisionmd
- Posts: 606
- Joined: Sat 14 Jul 2007, 20:42
Is the Puppy project in need of funding?
Hello,
Just a short question here:
Is the Puppy project in need of funding?
Best Regards,
Johan
Just a short question here:
Is the Puppy project in need of funding?
Best Regards,
Johan
divisionmd wrote:
The Puppy project appears to have lost its main Linux engineer - one of the best (maybe the best) in the Linux business.
The community is in a mess and doesn't really know where to go from here. It could well be, that since there appears to be no available replacement within the Community, the only way to actually replace Barry is to headhunt/import someone from elsewhere - even if it costs money!
In the long term, this may be the only solution that can save the project.
If such a person could be found, who is capable of making the the base versions, the Community could then get behind any derivatives spawned from the base version - i.e. it would be business as usual.
Failing this we are stuck with "base" versions that are in reality derivatives of derivatives - a sure road to extinction for the project.
So yes, I do think the project needs funding to ensure its survival in the long term.
Sorry about maybe departing from this thread a little.Is the Puppy project in need of funding?
The Puppy project appears to have lost its main Linux engineer - one of the best (maybe the best) in the Linux business.
The community is in a mess and doesn't really know where to go from here. It could well be, that since there appears to be no available replacement within the Community, the only way to actually replace Barry is to headhunt/import someone from elsewhere - even if it costs money!
In the long term, this may be the only solution that can save the project.
If such a person could be found, who is capable of making the the base versions, the Community could then get behind any derivatives spawned from the base version - i.e. it would be business as usual.
Failing this we are stuck with "base" versions that are in reality derivatives of derivatives - a sure road to extinction for the project.
So yes, I do think the project needs funding to ensure its survival in the long term.
Life is too short to spend it in front of a computer
Re: Is the Puppy project in need of funding?
divisionmd wrote:Is the Puppy project in need of funding?
Slippery slope, momentum analogy, and domino effect alerts.tronkel wrote:I do think the project needs funding to ensure its survival in the long term.
[size=84][i]hangout:[/i] ##b0rked on irc.freenode.net
[i]diversion:[/i] [url]http://alienjeff.net[/url] - visit The Fringe
[i]quote:[/i] "The foundation of authority is based upon the consent of the people." - Thomas Hooker[/size]
[i]diversion:[/i] [url]http://alienjeff.net[/url] - visit The Fringe
[i]quote:[/i] "The foundation of authority is based upon the consent of the people." - Thomas Hooker[/size]
yes
Funding is part of the chicken-and-egg phenomenon in a community-based project. Creating the formal organization requires funding, and donors would require that a formal organization exists.
In the case of the long-proposed Puppy Linux Foundation, registering the entity would require lawyer and agency fees, and (depending on the country/state) a seed fund. Whether the entity is a coop or foundation, there will be fees for full incorporation, a legal assistant to handle the paperwork, and possibly hosting fees for a teleconference.
As to the project having no replacement developers, I beg to disagree. Developer Mark Ulrich or MU (as an example) has been here for a long time, and student Pizzasgood is right now in college (a sophomore) training himself for the future (and that future includes Puppy).
If the project has funding, we can offer salary to MUso that he can spend more time for the project. Also, we can offer scholarship to Pizzasgood so that he could render student assistant time for the project, or even to do thesis for Puppy Linux.
There are other active community members with similar characterization, like Zigbert/Dougal/Hairywill (developers) and cb88/SirDuncan/phantrongnghia (student) - sorry if I missed lots of other names.
In the case of the long-proposed Puppy Linux Foundation, registering the entity would require lawyer and agency fees, and (depending on the country/state) a seed fund. Whether the entity is a coop or foundation, there will be fees for full incorporation, a legal assistant to handle the paperwork, and possibly hosting fees for a teleconference.
As to the project having no replacement developers, I beg to disagree. Developer Mark Ulrich or MU (as an example) has been here for a long time, and student Pizzasgood is right now in college (a sophomore) training himself for the future (and that future includes Puppy).
If the project has funding, we can offer salary to MUso that he can spend more time for the project. Also, we can offer scholarship to Pizzasgood so that he could render student assistant time for the project, or even to do thesis for Puppy Linux.
There are other active community members with similar characterization, like Zigbert/Dougal/Hairywill (developers) and cb88/SirDuncan/phantrongnghia (student) - sorry if I missed lots of other names.
Puppy user since Oct 2004. Want FreeOffice? [url=http://puppylinux.info/topic/freeoffice-2012-sfs]Get the sfs (English only)[/url].
@raffy
Scholarship for Pizzasgood?
You've been into the KoolAid again, haven't you, Raffy?
Scholarship for Pizzasgood?
You've been into the KoolAid again, haven't you, Raffy?
[size=84][i]hangout:[/i] ##b0rked on irc.freenode.net
[i]diversion:[/i] [url]http://alienjeff.net[/url] - visit The Fringe
[i]quote:[/i] "The foundation of authority is based upon the consent of the people." - Thomas Hooker[/size]
[i]diversion:[/i] [url]http://alienjeff.net[/url] - visit The Fringe
[i]quote:[/i] "The foundation of authority is based upon the consent of the people." - Thomas Hooker[/size]
examples
Those are examples, AJ. The essence is that funding can be used for purposes that are aligned with the future of the project.
Am sure you have better ideas, so please post them.
Am sure you have better ideas, so please post them.
Puppy user since Oct 2004. Want FreeOffice? [url=http://puppylinux.info/topic/freeoffice-2012-sfs]Get the sfs (English only)[/url].
-
Sit Heel Speak
- Posts: 2595
- Joined: Fri 31 Mar 2006, 03:22
- Location: downwind
There does need to be a single "top dog," a Linus Torvalds or a Barry Kauler. It is the only way a unified face, a logical progression of an identifiable, distinct OS called "Puppy," can be maintained in the world.
A Puppy Linux Foundation with the incorporation structure of the 501(c)3 non-profit corporation of the United States of America, is how all the J.Z. Knight and suchlike "new age channeling churches" are structured, and I think this is the ideal way to structure the organizational vehicle for an evolving computer OS as well.
Such a church typically has an executive board: "Spiritual Leader," a vice-president in case the top dog goes away, a secretary, treasurer, and two or more Trustees. It hires on retainer as consultants its attorneys, financial advisors and so on.
The secure ability of a non-profit 501(c)3 executive board to exercize, and to retain exclusive rights against all challenges (including from within) to its ownership and control of the intellectual properties have been vigorously tested, and these rights have stood up in court in the USA for more than fifty years. IANAL but presume that an OS would be governed in courts by these "new age channelling church" precedents and be similarly well defensible.
U.S.A. incorporation laws vary in specifics by state; I don't know how Australia, the UK, Canada, Germany et cetera vary. Nevada has the strongest protections against financial disclosure, but Washington is time-tested to be both "new-age-church friendly" and "operating system vendor friendly." And so, just by experience-of-observation-alone, this state is where I would propose the Puppy Foundation incorporate. A 501(c)3 corporation incorporated here in the State of Washington need hold its in-person meatspace board meetings only once every two years. At such board meetings the list of candidates for executive board positions can be presented all-at-once to the in-person assembled membership, which need not meet any of the standard percentage-attendance metrics for establishing a "quorum." Typically the slate is re-elected by voice acclamation. Thus the incumbents can be highly confident of retaining say-so over who sits among them on the board.
A 501(c)3 corporation has all the "individual severability" protections of a for-profit corporation. Thus, for example, if I were the "Spiritual Leader" and I went off on a rant on the topic of my well-known views on a certain historical allegation which I hold to be nothing but myth, views which are in fact illegal to promote in not fewer than 14 countries, then even if I were arrested the Puppy Foundation would not be liable.
And yet such a corporation has the right to hold assets, to issue products, and to collect and dispense funds, all tax-free. About the only thing it cannot do is "engage in for-profit business." The way the local example churches of which I am aware get around this is, when a "member" asks for a "CD of a channelling" there is a "requested (not required) donation," and the CD is then "given to the member in commemoration of the gift." Donations are tallied up at the end of each "congregational meeting" in the aggregate, but it is not necessary to identify each individual "contributor" unless the amount donated is substantial, if memory serves the threshold is US$1,000. But since the various Puppies and puplets are all available for free download such considerations do not apply and are not a worry in the ordinary course of dispensation of the distros.
HTH, SHS
A Puppy Linux Foundation with the incorporation structure of the 501(c)3 non-profit corporation of the United States of America, is how all the J.Z. Knight and suchlike "new age channeling churches" are structured, and I think this is the ideal way to structure the organizational vehicle for an evolving computer OS as well.
Such a church typically has an executive board: "Spiritual Leader," a vice-president in case the top dog goes away, a secretary, treasurer, and two or more Trustees. It hires on retainer as consultants its attorneys, financial advisors and so on.
The secure ability of a non-profit 501(c)3 executive board to exercize, and to retain exclusive rights against all challenges (including from within) to its ownership and control of the intellectual properties have been vigorously tested, and these rights have stood up in court in the USA for more than fifty years. IANAL but presume that an OS would be governed in courts by these "new age channelling church" precedents and be similarly well defensible.
U.S.A. incorporation laws vary in specifics by state; I don't know how Australia, the UK, Canada, Germany et cetera vary. Nevada has the strongest protections against financial disclosure, but Washington is time-tested to be both "new-age-church friendly" and "operating system vendor friendly." And so, just by experience-of-observation-alone, this state is where I would propose the Puppy Foundation incorporate. A 501(c)3 corporation incorporated here in the State of Washington need hold its in-person meatspace board meetings only once every two years. At such board meetings the list of candidates for executive board positions can be presented all-at-once to the in-person assembled membership, which need not meet any of the standard percentage-attendance metrics for establishing a "quorum." Typically the slate is re-elected by voice acclamation. Thus the incumbents can be highly confident of retaining say-so over who sits among them on the board.
A 501(c)3 corporation has all the "individual severability" protections of a for-profit corporation. Thus, for example, if I were the "Spiritual Leader" and I went off on a rant on the topic of my well-known views on a certain historical allegation which I hold to be nothing but myth, views which are in fact illegal to promote in not fewer than 14 countries, then even if I were arrested the Puppy Foundation would not be liable.
And yet such a corporation has the right to hold assets, to issue products, and to collect and dispense funds, all tax-free. About the only thing it cannot do is "engage in for-profit business." The way the local example churches of which I am aware get around this is, when a "member" asks for a "CD of a channelling" there is a "requested (not required) donation," and the CD is then "given to the member in commemoration of the gift." Donations are tallied up at the end of each "congregational meeting" in the aggregate, but it is not necessary to identify each individual "contributor" unless the amount donated is substantial, if memory serves the threshold is US$1,000. But since the various Puppies and puplets are all available for free download such considerations do not apply and are not a worry in the ordinary course of dispensation of the distros.
HTH, SHS
Re: Is the Puppy project in need of funding?
@divisionmd yes always..costs are real world and will need to be addresseddivisionmd wrote:Is the Puppy project in need of funding?
Hi Aj,alienjeff wrote: Slippery slope, momentum analogy, and domino effect alerts.
Well there is that constant burr under the blanket aka project..and it's called finance. No matter how you look at Puppy, it costs money to produce and serve to the public. The slippery slope is NOT addressing these concerns...that said, a proper way to handle donations now that Barry is changing course will be needed and I think the co-op or whatever is decided needs to address this part of real life projects.
Best,
Eric
PS..Hey Jeff...keep the punches coming...I like the banter. Also I think what Raffy meant was scholarship for pizza..meaning we all need pizza and cheese,pepperoni etc...or at least pizzasgood will agree..sorry Raffy, I just had to tease this one.
[color=darkred][i]Be not afraid to grow slowly, only be afraid of standing still.[/i]
Chinese Proverb[/color]
Chinese Proverb[/color]