William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> 
> Put it like this, Council answers to devs. Foundation answers to
> community. At some point the council should answer to the Foundation as
> well. Otherwise the community has no voice, only developers.
> 

I think we need to be careful here.  I wouldn't say that the Foundation 
answers to the community or represents the community.  Rather, I'd say 
that the Foundation serves the community.  The community is our mission 
- not our source of authority.

The reason this concerns me is that we really need to avoid an 
us-against-them mentality.  The devs are all volunteers and we can't 
really afford to have those who aren't volunteering perceived as issuing 
orders to those who are volunteering.  I think the role of the 
Foundation is to inspire the devs to do what is right - not to order 
them to do so.  I think most devs have respect for the effort the 
trustees are putting into getting the Foundation running and what it 
stands for.  As a result, I think that the Foundation will be heard when 
it speaks, at least more so than a bunch of end-users who are perceived 
as always asking for more but never giving back.  (I use the word 
"perceived" as I know the reality is more complex.)

> Although the Foundation, board/officers, will never dictate to the
> council/CTO on technical matters. At best only suggest, based on the
> will of the community, vendors, or etc. What the council does from
> there, is up to them. As it is now. Because after all they know what is
> best technically, and that's their call to make in the end.
> 

++

I couldn't have said this better.  There have been those who have 
recently been looking towards the trustees to essentially make the devs 
fall into line, and I think that what you've said emphasizes the balance 
and care required to make the distro a success.
-- 
gentoo-nfp@g.o mailing list