On Mon, 2005-04-11 at 13:20 +0200, Spider wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-04-11 at 12:29 +0200, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 10:33:42PM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> > >   1. Members must be currently active Gentoo developers who have been
> > >   developers for at least a year.
> > >   2. Members must have requested membership.  If you don't want to be
> > >   a member of the foundation, you shouldn't have to be.  (Indeed, the
> > >   actual role of the foundation is quite limited.)
> > 
> > I agree with this proposal, with the addendum that membership should be
> > rerequested each year. It gives more work but keeps the membership list
> > clean over the years with people interested in the bureaucracy of dealing
> > with IP, funding requests and dealing with Social Contract complaints. 
> 
> Can you make it every two years?  One year isn't long enough to fall
> beyond the "active in the last year" limit,   two is. 

I think two years is to long. 
We have had a board of 13 for almost a year now 
and as you can see there in the short period of time that has passed 
already that many have already become inactive. By changing to a two 
year setup we could potentially shoot ourselves in the foots by having a
board that can grow stale. The members that have done a good job and 
it's visible to our devs however will be renominated and reelected.

With that said, I think cshields has done pretty good job the past year
looking out for our Gentoo interests and I'd like to see him right back
in there for another term.

-- 
Ned Ludd <solar@g.o>

--
gentoo-nfp@g.o mailing list