1 |
Ned Ludd wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
>> 1. Members must be currently active Gentoo developers who have been |
4 |
>> developers for at least a year. |
5 |
>> 2. Members must have requested membership. If you don't want to be |
6 |
>> a member of the foundation, you shouldn't have to be. (Indeed, the |
7 |
>> actual role of the foundation is quite limited.) |
8 |
> |
9 |
> I think two years is to long. |
10 |
> We have had a board of 13 for almost a year now |
11 |
> and as you can see there in the short period of time that has passed |
12 |
> already that many have already become inactive. By changing to a two |
13 |
> year setup we could potentially shoot ourselves in the foots by having a |
14 |
> board that can grow stale. The members that have done a good job and |
15 |
> it's visible to our devs however will be renominated and reelected. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> With that said, I think cshields has done pretty good job the past year |
18 |
> looking out for our Gentoo interests and I'd like to see him right back |
19 |
> in there for another term. |
20 |
|
21 |
Looks like Grant was talking about "foundation membership" conditions |
22 |
and terms, which has little to do with "trustee election candidate" |
23 |
conditions (and term when elected). The "members" vote to designate the |
24 |
"trustees". |
25 |
|
26 |
In the (proposed? current?) bylaws, the length of election term is set |
27 |
to one year (article 5 section 5). |
28 |
|
29 |
Also note that Article 4 defines how members are designated, and |
30 |
basically it means being nominated by "current members" (whatever that |
31 |
is), not being a self-proclaimed-interested one-year-old dev... and |
32 |
membership once acquired is revoked only exceptionally by a 2/3 members |
33 |
majority vote. |
34 |
|
35 |
-- |
36 |
Koon |
37 |
-- |
38 |
gentoo-nfp@g.o mailing list |