I didn't vote in time to be counted, but here are a couple comments...

Grant Goodyear wrote:	[Sat Apr 16 2005, 09:56:59AM EDT]
> Here's the results as of this morning.  Fifty-three people voted (not
> including myself, since I'm doing the counting).  I should have had us
> set up a mail alias so that somebody else also received the votes, since
> with this method people have to trust that my counting is honest.  Sorry
> about that.
> 
> > 1. Gentoo Foundation membership is available to all Gentoo developers
> >    ___ Immediately upon becoming a dev
> 5 votes
> >    ___ 1 year after becoming a dev
> 42 votes
> >    ___ 2 years after becoming a dev
> 2 votes
> >    ___ None of the above
> 2 votes
> 
> Multiple people commented that this question was too simplistic.  Does
> the X years need to be continuous?  What happens with a dev who is on
> hiatus for some period of time?  Should there be an alternative
> "fast-track w/ Y nominations from existing members" route to becoming
> a member?  Nonetheless, there does seem to be a substantial consensus
> that 1 year is about right.

Personally, I'd like continuous 1 year required prior to eligibility.
A hiatus (the semi-official Gentoo term for leave of absence) of more
than 30 days would revoke membership, requiring 6 months of activity
following the hiatus to restore membership.  This rule would attempt
to ensure that members are abreast of current goings-on to reduce
uninformed voting.  It's also simple and relatively easy to track.

Some might ask: What about developers that just leave for a while, but
don't announce they are on hiatus?  I'll respond in advance: don't
worry about it.  Hopefully somebody notices and queries them.  If
a developer isn't responding, bring it up on -core in case somebody is
in contact with the dev in question.  If the developer can't be raised
within 30 days, they will be considered "on hiatus".

I don't see the point in fast-track.  Keep it simple: 1 year
continuous activity, then membership is possible.  The only point
I can see in "sponsoring" newer devs to membership is to get more
supporters for a given vote, which isn't a good reason.  I don't think
it's asking too much for developers to actively contribute for a year
before they're allowed to vote; after all, they can help swing the
vote by arguing effectively in a public forum such as -dev without the
need for voting privileges themselves.

Regards,
Aron

--
Aron Griffis
Gentoo Linux Developer