1 |
On 01/05/2017 03:57 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: |
2 |
> On 01/05/2017 10:36 PM, Matthew Thode wrote: |
3 |
>> When the Foundation and subsequently the council were set up, both |
4 |
>> bodies had common members despite their declared different purposes. |
5 |
>> Over the years the common members have vanished. Indeed, since 2008, |
6 |
>> the Foundation bylaws have forbidden a single individual to serve on |
7 |
>> council and as a trustee concurrently. |
8 |
>> Thus the split in responsibilities identified when the foundation was |
9 |
>> created has become more absolute. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> I've always believed Unix philosophy states that modularization is good? |
12 |
> |
13 |
|
14 |
I'm not saying we can't be modular, in fact I'd prefer that. What I'm |
15 |
advocating is switching from Gentoo having two alternate heads to having |
16 |
one, with subcommittees (or whatever you want to call them) for each set |
17 |
purpose. |
18 |
|
19 |
>> |
20 |
>> This split is suboptimal for Gentoo (all of it). There is a reason why |
21 |
>> normal corporations are structured the way they are and Gentoo has not |
22 |
>> been like that since 2004. |
23 |
>> This proposal sets out a plan to revert to the normal corporate |
24 |
>> structure that Gentoo enjoyed before the Foundation and Council were |
25 |
>> created. |
26 |
> |
27 |
> Can you elaborate a bit more on why it is suboptimal? I see the text |
28 |
> below, but is it really sufficient description for a major change? |
29 |
> |
30 |
> |
31 |
|
32 |
Suboptimal for having different voting pools meaning possibly |
33 |
conflicting goals. There's also the denial of the technical side of |
34 |
Gentoo still being under the legal side, even if we don't wish this to |
35 |
be the case. Keeping Gentoo self-aligned and self-consistent is the goal. |
36 |
|
37 |
|
38 |
-- |
39 |
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire) |