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
begin  quote
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 15:47:39 -0600
"Daniel Robbins" <drobbins@g.o> wrote:

> > Kurt clearly explained why the coop needs to be a separate entity from > the main NFP. The coop is a good thing in itself. But combined with > the NFP, the coop will first make setting up the NFP take way too > long. Second, it will completely change the way decisions are made on > the project, which people don't want. It will undermine developer > authority, which developers obviously don't want. I was mistakenly > trying to accomplish too many things under one roof by suggesting that > we have a coop be the main entity for Gentoo. > > So the coop and the NFP need to be a separate entity. The NFP will be > set up first, then we will worry about funding issues that can be > addressed by setting up a coop. > > Just want to make sure that everyone knows my corrected opinion on > this.
Would you please post this to -core as well, since thats where a lot of this discussion was first introduced to people ( the meeting log for one ) Otherwise, I'm glad for the separation, and I'm quite optimistic about what the coop would be able to produce. It does give some hope for the future. //Spider -- begin .signature Tortured users / Laughing in pain See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information. end