Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-nfp
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-nfp: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-nfp <gentoo-nfp@g.o>
From: Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o>
Subject: Re: Foundation existence and behavior (Was: Section 4.1 Member Classes)
Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 14:39:30 +0100
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2008.05.25 01:03, Luca Barbato wrote:
> William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
[snip
> lu
> 
> -- 
> 
> Luca Barbato
> Gentoo Council Member
> Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
> 
> -- 
> gentoo-nfp@g.o mailing list
> 
> 
> 
All,

These threads have got too long and on my mail client, somewhat broken, 
so I'm posting here because it looks like a good place, nothing more.

All this discussion of what Gentoo could become and the way is should 
move is all very well but its not helping the here and now of getting 
bylaws agreed.

Gentoo is an organic entity, continually growing in different 
directions as contributors (not only devs) come and go.

The Foundation needs a set of bylaws *now*, that suit Gentoo as it is 
*now* but written in such a way that allows for flexibility as Gentoo 
ch ages.

The Foundation is set up as a business legal entity because that's the 
only sort there is. Its behavior is bound by New Mexico law, as 
interpreted by case law and the bylaws, which we are discussing here, 
Article by Article. William is quite right when he says there is no 
such thing as an informal foundation. Try informally filing your 
personal tax returns. 

As long as we obey the laws, which really only describe how we must 
conduct the business of the Gentoo Foundation, the 'what' we do and how 
we organise it is up to the Foundation members, within our articles of 
incorporation.

Back to the now.
The emphasis is very much on the *now*. There is no point in framing 
bylaws for what Gentoo might become - more than likely, it won't become 
what we expect today, We will never agree such speculative bylaws 
anyway. Even if we did, because of what we are today, we could not 
follow them.

Its back to the simple here and now, with adaptability.

- -- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(NeddySeagoon) a member of
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
treecleaners
trustees
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkg5bBkACgkQTE4/y7nJvatY9QCeNkeyB925lul9FhJqNIaKb7CY
BvIAn2vtQfF9/jRjWkPb+u3loZfCHRz1
=vyqM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-nfp@g.o mailing list


Replies:
Re: Foundation existence and behavior (Was: Section 4.1 Member Classes)
-- Richard Freeman
References:
Foundation existence and behavior (Was: Section 4.1 Member Classes)
-- Luca Barbato
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-nfp: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: Foundation existence and behavior (Was: Section 4.1 Member Classes)
Next by thread:
Re: Foundation existence and behavior (Was: Section 4.1 Member Classes)
Previous by date:
Re: Foundation existence and behavior (Was: Section 4.1 Member Classes)
Next by date:
Re: Foundation existence and behavior (Was: Section 4.1 Member Classes)


Updated Jun 17, 2009

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-nfp mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.