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 |