Re: association vs job site

[GNU Herds work team]

Richard Stallman wrote:
>     We could state that:
>       "following the GNU Project's policies"
>     will have priority over:
>       "controlled by its users"
>     but better, we can grant veto power to the Ethics Officer.
>
> That would solve the specific problem.  However, what then is the
> sense in which the organization is "controlled by its users"?
>
> What is the purpose of setting up a formal organization anyway?
>
> It seems to me that there are two different goals here:
>
> * Have an organization to do (what?)
>
> * Run a nice job site for the FSF.

We would like this project not to be just a job site because of we think the 
job site is just one of the possible modules to develop. We would like it to 
be an association due to we want members feel and have a key role about what 
and how the association modules are developed. That will be good for both the 
FSF and the association members.

It is obvious that such association have to follow the Free Software 
philosophy, so the name "Free Software Association". Therefore we do not fear 
to grant to the Ethics Officer appointed by the FSF veto power, and let that 
the member information be kept at hosts controlled by the FSF. We are even 
asking for it!.  However that fact does not avoid members from taking a key 
role, even voting inside such association.  We think the voting system could 
be a tool to manage such association. The job site is just another module; 
the most important one, to encourage the professional development of FS 
contributors; of course, always following the FS philosophy.

About the technical side, for example, we have agreed with you about avoiding 
that workers and employers can add any text to her/his qualifications or job 
offers. We have agreed due to we recognize it is a way to avoid malicious 
use.

We proposed to host the service at the FSF hosts so as to the association 
members be sure its data are taken with care. We do not want our email be 
sold by a system administrator, or the access to our data be granted to 
external organizations, going beyond the Access Control List defined by the 
owner of such information (the member).

We hope that the Ethics Officer, taking veto power, will not block the 
association decisions to develop another module or add a feature which does 
not conflict with the FS philosophy .

Maybe, if you agree, will be better state that:
    "following the GNU Project's policies"
 will have priority over:
    "controlled by its users"

The veto power should not be used to remove functionality without a justified 
reason.

We could modify the Charter to say something like:

  The Ethics Officer will be appointed by the Free Software
  Foundation, Inc. to ensure the below points, having veto
  power over all subject related to such points:

     * the integrity of the GNU name is not breached
     * the Association follows the Free Software philosophy and
     * all possible technical measures are taken to be sure the
       Association follows the Free Software philosophy. For
       example, do not use free-to-fill fields in the employer's
       job offers and worker's qualifications.
     * [Add more rules here if you think it is needed]


Anyway, we will do what you want. We just suggest.

Regards,
The work team