| 1 |
Roy Bamford wrote: |
| 2 |
> The rule prevents the Foundation being a subset of the council and |
| 3 |
> preseves the split that was intended when the Foundation was |
| 4 |
> established. Maybe the split wasn't a good idea in the first place? |
| 5 |
> Its certainly an odd management structure that Gentoo has. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> It also prevents a huge hole being left in the gentoo management |
| 8 |
> structure by the loss of a single individual. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I understand the arguments that have been put forth for the separation, |
| 12 |
but I don't agree. Honestly, the one organization being largely a |
| 13 |
subset of the other sounds perfectly fine to me - almost ideal. There |
| 14 |
should really be "One Gentoo" - the more unity between the organizations |
| 15 |
the better. Of course, the skills needed to be a trustee and a council |
| 16 |
member are not identical, so it isn't a bad idea to allow different |
| 17 |
people to participate on each. However, forced independence isn't a |
| 18 |
good idea in my opinion. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
At the same time, I appreciate that doing a good job on either |
| 21 |
organization takes time, so care should be taken before just stepping up |
| 22 |
to the plate for both. On the other hand, representation matters more |
| 23 |
on a board than effort. In fact, I'd encourage both boards to delegate |
| 24 |
tasks to individuals willing to perform them and focus more on |
| 25 |
oversight. This largely happens with the council (devrel, recruiters, |
| 26 |
and other project/arch leads), but the trustees seem to be a bit more |
| 27 |
limited in manpower. |
Archives