1 |
On Fri, 2008-05-23 at 01:57 +0200, Luca Barbato wrote: |
2 |
> William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: |
3 |
> > Just to be more specific and clear wrt to community. I as a developer, |
4 |
> > not a Trustee. I get all kinds of help from the Gentoo community. |
5 |
> > Patches, bug fixes, pointing out mistakes/errors, providing |
6 |
> > improvements. It's invaluable, and at times more help than I get from |
7 |
> > fellow Gentoo developers. Which I have a couple open bugs, I can't get |
8 |
> > any devs to help me with. The recent ones I needed help on that are |
9 |
> > closed, the community/users/contributors came through on. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> That is completely unrelated about adding random people to the foundation. |
12 |
|
13 |
No it's not because the foundation encompasses the community. Per |
14 |
comments Daniel has made and others. Representing the community was the |
15 |
foundations intention, but over time. As the foundation was neglected, |
16 |
it seems that was never realized. |
17 |
|
18 |
> > For some reason it seems like what happens with adults forgetting they |
19 |
> > were kids. Developers seem to forget we were once users. We might one |
20 |
> > day return to being users. So should those that do not wield developer |
21 |
> > status not matter? |
22 |
> |
23 |
> They are quite important, but that is unrelated to the foundation. |
24 |
|
25 |
In your opinion. Not in all or others. |
26 |
|
27 |
> > Some of our longest contributing members to Gentoo Java, aren't devs, |
28 |
> > nor will they ever be. They don't want to be. Some even have their own |
29 |
> > overlays. So guess they should not have any say or input. |
30 |
> |
31 |
> You just told me that their input has been treasured by the java team, |
32 |
|
33 |
Does it mean it was passed on to the council? Does it mean that if they |
34 |
want me to do something I do? Does it mean I represent them and their |
35 |
will? |
36 |
|
37 |
> the fact they do not want to become developers while they are |
38 |
> maintaining an overlay is something that should be addressed, but is |
39 |
> completely off topic. |
40 |
|
41 |
They don't want to deal with the BS of being a dev. Frankly I can't |
42 |
blame them in the least. |
43 |
|
44 |
> > There should not be this elitism with a divide between developers, |
45 |
> > users, contributors, sponsors, etc. We are all together the Gentoo |
46 |
> > community. Which the foundation as I understand it, was intended from |
47 |
> > it's inception to represent. |
48 |
> |
49 |
> NO, the foundation is an US activity born to have people sponsoring us |
50 |
> get tax cuts. At least that was the main idea. |
51 |
|
52 |
Who's idea? Who created the foundation? Who handed things over to the |
53 |
foundation? What was their intentions? That was surely not their plan. |
54 |
If it was their plan, they would have filed 501c3, not 501c6. Which has |
55 |
no provisions for write off. |
56 |
|
57 |
Never has anyone ever legally been able to donate to and write off as a |
58 |
charitable donation. Any amount to the Gentoo Foundation, ever. It's not |
59 |
that type of legal entity. |
60 |
|
61 |
> The other important activities would be make sure we do not lose out |
62 |
> trademark but IIRC it isn't currently property of the foundation. |
63 |
|
64 |
Since when? I guess you do not realize that Daniel did hand over the |
65 |
trademark. This year. The last actions the previous board of Trustees |
66 |
did was to see the trademark thing through. Granted we had a trademark |
67 |
for a entity that did not exists legally. That's been corrected. |
68 |
|
69 |
Once we create a document page. I will see about providing copies of all |
70 |
the trademark stuff, and etc. Which the current board does not have the |
71 |
originals to I do not believe. |
72 |
|
73 |
But the Gentoo Foundation is now the holder of any associated |
74 |
trademarks. That should be clear and known. |
75 |
|
76 |
-- |
77 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |
78 |
amd64/Java/Trustees |
79 |
Gentoo Foundation |