Re: [gentoo-nfp] Points to Ponder for Sundays Meeting.

[Ferris McCormick]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Hash: SHA1





This time including comments.



On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 15:25:16 -0700

Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o> wrote:



> On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 20:42 +0100, Roy Bamford wrote:
> > I have a vested interest in the definition of a "full developer" I want
> > to propose something like "Gentoo developers become members of the
> > Gentoo Foundation on the first anniversary of their join date, as held
> > in the individuals LDAP record." That makes it nice and unambiguous
> > for election officials. It also defines developers as anyone who has an
> > LDAP record.
> >
> > and "Foundation membership ceases at the close of the trustee election
> > following the members retirement from the project."
> > I don't want serving trustees retired unless they resign from the
> > Foundation separately under its bylaws.
>
> If only (essentially) current Gentoo developers are able to be
> Foundation members, what's exactly the point?  I'm seriously asking
> here.  One thing that has consistently been brought up is that there is
> no representation for non-developers in the Foundation.  The Gentoo
> Foundation is supposed to be about the Gentoo community, not just a
> selective and restricted subset of said community.
>
> I can see having some kind of "timeout" for membership, but it should
> *not* be based on someone's role within the Gentoo developer community.
> Perhaps participation in the Foundation should count.  For example, I
> should be able to quit Gentoo today, but as long as I still continue to
> vote and provide input on Foundation matters, I should be allowed.  Now,
> once I quit contributing to the Foundation, I see no reason why I
> shouldn't lose my status, but I should also be able to get it back
> without having to become a developer for a year... again.
>


I agree, and I suspect the trustees support this.



> Remember, the Gentoo Foundation is what drives Gentoo (the distribution)
> or at least that's how it is supposed to be.  Let's not think of things
> backwards.  The current ideas seem to stem from the idea that the
> distribution controls the Foundation, when it should be the exact
> opposite.  The Foundation *should* be a proponent of the community.  It
> *should* take in what the community wants and try to steer the
> development pool in that direction.  It should be a catalyst for
> positive change within Gentoo, not simply a reactionary body that does
> nothing more than echo the wishes of the developer community.  After
> all, if it's nothing but the developers, why make it separate or have
> differing rules?  Why not just make someone a Foundation member on day 1
> of their developer status and revoke it on the last day?  Wouldn't that
> fit in better with any ideas that revolve around the distribution
> controlling Foundation membership?
>
> It's my personal opinion that the Foundation should have the ability to
> control its own membership.  Currently, membership is decided by an
> external third party (the Gentoo distribution's Developer Relations
> team) and based on some fairly arbitrary term of service.  That worked
> out great for the *original* Foundation, but really needs to be
> rethought.  Remember guys, you have the ability to rebuild the
> Foundation how you see fit.  Don't pass up this opportunity because of
> history or the status quo.  Do what you think is best and everybody else
> be damned.  ;]
>


I agree with this.  By law, the membership of the Foundation is

determined by the Foundation's bylaws, not by other Gentoo projects.  I

think what you are saying is pretty much in line with our own thinking,

and thanks for the comments.



Regards,

Ferris

> --
> Chris Gianelloni
> Release Engineering Strategic Lead
> Games Developer
> --
> gentoo-nfp@l.g.o mailing list
>




- -- 

Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@g.o>

Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Devrel, Userrel, Trustees)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux)



iD8DBQFICSaPQa6M3+I///cRArn3AKDkjaJhfRktE0bIeflI0KiYfowjrACfWXiS

GsKTklUv/sGOhquIUck5TRM=

=k4O4

-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----