Gentoo Archives: gentoo-nfp

From: Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
To: gentoo-nfp <gentoo-nfp@l.g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-nfp] Gentoo Social Contract and potential liabilities
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 11:00:54
Message-Id: CAGfcS_n_D--Sg4+gKXzWg2PezFN6fhA0a93QCB2Jo6Lpku5XSw@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-nfp] Gentoo Social Contract and potential liabilities by Roy Bamford
1 On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 6:22 AM, Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o> wrote:
2 >
3 > Its up to the board of trustees whos opinion(s) they take into account. They only answer
4 > to the Foundation members but there is precedence for seeking the opinions of the
5 > entire developer body.
6 >
7
8 And this is why I've maintained that having the set of developers and
9 the set of Foundation members not being identical is a bad thing. So
10 is not having a clear hierarchy between the Trustees/Council.
11
12 The fact is that at least the way it is designed right now, Gentoo
13 can't operate without either the developers or the Foundation. That
14 means that it is a bit dangerous that we can have situations where the
15 two can end up moving in different directions, since if they go too
16 far apart there is risk that it all falls apart.
17
18 --
19 Rich