| 1 |
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Mon, 2008-05-19 at 21:13 +0100, Steve Long wrote: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> Well I'd argue Council is Executive body since the main work of the |
| 6 |
>> organisation is the technology (with perhaps infra as CTO) but that's an |
| 7 |
>> aside. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Infra would never qualify as CTO. But would fall under the Council's |
| 10 |
> sphere as they do now. Short of for funding requests, which the council |
| 11 |
> doesn't oversee. Infra would be CIO if anything. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Just for reference |
| 14 |
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_technical_officer |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
OK so infra wouldn't be CTO. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> The only diff here, being our CTO is a council or body. We could suggest |
| 19 |
> to the council, they appoint a lead. But that's really up to them. I |
| 20 |
> have no problem with the CTO as it applies to getting being a group |
| 21 |
> comprised of several. Versus a single person. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
Yeah but I disagree that the Council is limited to CTO, since the whole pupose |
| 24 |
of Gentoo is to develop software. I'd argue the Trustees are a Supervisory |
| 25 |
Board, and the Council an Executive Board within the two-tier model. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
The portage team strike me more as the CTO in that setup though I admit your |
| 28 |
knowledge of these titles outweighs mine ;) |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervisory_board |
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
gentoo-nfp@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives