Gentoo Archives: gentoo-nfp

From: Spider <spider@g.o>
To: gentoo-nfp@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-nfp] Summary of NFP options
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:45:36
Message-Id: 20040415004523.76770385.spider@gentoo.org
In Reply to: RE: [gentoo-nfp] Summary of NFP options by Daniel Robbins
1 begin quote
2 On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 15:47:39 -0600
3 "Daniel Robbins" <drobbins@g.o> wrote:
4
5 >
6 > Kurt clearly explained why the coop needs to be a separate entity from
7 > the main NFP. The coop is a good thing in itself. But combined with
8 > the NFP, the coop will first make setting up the NFP take way too
9 > long. Second, it will completely change the way decisions are made on
10 > the project, which people don't want. It will undermine developer
11 > authority, which developers obviously don't want. I was mistakenly
12 > trying to accomplish too many things under one roof by suggesting that
13 > we have a coop be the main entity for Gentoo.
14 >
15 > So the coop and the NFP need to be a separate entity. The NFP will be
16 > set up first, then we will worry about funding issues that can be
17 > addressed by setting up a coop.
18 >
19 > Just want to make sure that everyone knows my corrected opinion on
20 > this.
21
22
23 Would you please post this to -core as well, since thats where a lot of
24 this discussion was first introduced to people ( the meeting log for
25 one )
26
27
28
29 Otherwise, I'm glad for the separation, and I'm quite optimistic about
30 what the coop would be able to produce. It does give some hope for the
31 future.
32
33
34 //Spider
35
36 --
37 begin .signature
38 Tortured users / Laughing in pain
39 See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
40 end