1.1

First off, I'd like to say that I think we're actually mostly in 
agreement, but maybe talking past each other slightly.

Alistair Bush wrote:
>> No argument there.  But keep in mind that the devs should drive the 
>> rules - not the other way around.
> 
> Not sure I really understand this.  When you refer to dev's do you mean 
> all dev's individually or devs that are represented by say the Council? 
>  Also how would rules drive a dev?
> 

I guess I'm referring to both in a sense.  The purpose of rules is to 
make Gentoo work well - they don't exist for their own sake.  I guess 
I'm trying to advocate being pragmatic with regard to rules.  If an 
overwhelming majority of devs want something to happen, it should happen 
- we shouldn't delay decisions by months to hold elections/etc.  On the 
other hand, I do agree with you that we don't want to be so loose that 
we just presume to know the desires of the devs without bothering to ask 
them if a matter is sufficiently important.

> While I understand the point I have to ask, do the Foundation and 
> Council really have different Constituencies?  It isn't like one is dev 
> only and the other is open to anybody. Any differences between the 2 
> Constituencies are minor at worse.

Currently they are essentially the same.  However, the reason I bring 
this up is that there is some debate over whether the foundation 
membership should be substantially expanded beyond just gentoo devs 
(possibly including end-users, or those willing to pay a membership fee 
of some sort).  These kinds of situations could lead to the sorts of 
conflicts I'd like to avoid, as now you have two boards with different 
agendas in charge of aspects of the same project.
-- 
gentoo-nfp@g.o mailing list