Gentoo Archives: gentoo-nfp

From: Alec Warner <antarus@g.o>
To: Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-nfp@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-nfp] Trustee nominations
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 04:19:41
Message-Id: b41005390801272019w681d635bwd4fb23c1cd5cea5d@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-nfp] Trustee nominations by Chris Gianelloni
1 On 1/27/08, Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o> wrote:
2 > On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 14:37 -0500, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
3 > > > Being as it's already January 27th:
4 > >
5 > > Yes, it wasn't expected days would go by with no response. So picking
6 > > any new dates is kinda pointless till we know when they will be
7 > > commented on.
8 > >
9 > > > Nominations start Jan 30th through Feb 12th,
10 > > > Elections Feb 13th through 27th, new Trustees in march ;)
11 > >
12 > > No problem, unless we don't hear from Grant by the 30th. Then we reset
13 > > again and push back/delay some more.
14 >
15 > Umm... how about "from now until the 12th" so we can just start and not
16 > wait for Grant.
17 >
18 > No offense, but this whole "we have to wait for $foo to comment" is why
19 > we're very much in this boat in the first place. Do any of you
20 > seriously think that Grant is going to have some sort of objection to
21 > the *dates* in which the election is held?
22 >
23 > Also, votes can be called by the Foundation membership without Trustee
24 > approval.
25 >
26
27 Look, I just want to have my ducks in a row. The bylaws were not
28 ratified by anyone as far as I can tell; so it could be construed that
29 the foundation has only the trustees as members. Now Grant mentioned:
30
31 "For practical purposes, we follow the proposed bylaws anyway, except where
32 there is clear precedence contradicting them."
33
34 Now to me that is not very clear; obviously we are nowhere close to
35 following certain items of the bylaws (they mention for example, that
36 we need a name and address for every member, which we don't have and
37 so on....)
38
39 There is no point in charging forward if the whole election ends up
40 being illegal and has to be redone.
41
42 That being said I'm happy to expedite things up to the limits of legal
43 necessity.
44
45 -Alec
46
47 > I'm a Foundation member. I say we call this vote, starting nominations
48 > now, ending the 12th, voting from the 13th through the 27th. There, now
49 > it's official. Can we start nominating now?
50 >
51 > *grin*
52 >
53 > > Or any date, even if we don't agree. As most all want the date to come
54 > > from the trustees.
55 >
56 > Quit looking to the trustees for everything. That is *also* how we got
57 > into this mess. We're perfectly capable of doing quite a lot without
58 > the trustees, so long as we are acting on their behalf or acting on the
59 > behalf of the Foundation. As a Foundation member, one's vote counts
60 > exactly the same as a trustee, except in cases where the board must make
61 > a decision, which is generally only done as "proxy" to keep from having
62 > to constantly poll the membership. As opposed to the Council, which is
63 > purely a "representative government" the trustees more directly answer
64 > to the membership. The members are the real voters. The trustees just
65 > work on their behalf to save time. If the trustees do something the
66 > membership doesn't like, the membership can vote and veto it and the
67 > trustees cannot do a thing. They don't have any real special powers,
68 > other than what they're granted. This is essentially the opposite of
69 > the Council, which has *every* power except those that are explicitly
70 > denied.
71 >
72 > Anyway, at this point, we don't need to constantly wait on Grant except
73 > in cases where a signature is required or access to our finances is
74 > required. Remember, it was designed this way on purpose to not impede
75 > progress.
76 >
77 > --
78 > Chris Gianelloni
79 > Release Engineering Strategic Lead
80 > Games Developer
81 >
82 >
83 --
84 gentoo-nfp@l.g.o mailing list