On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 15:25 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> One thing that has consistently been brought up is that there is
> no representation for non-developers in the Foundation. The Gentoo
> Foundation is supposed to be about the Gentoo community, not just a
> selective and restricted subset of said community.
We likely then need to see about registration of non developers. I think
knowing who is and isn't a member has been part of the issue. Even worse
when it comes to the community. But I agree their should be a voice
there and membership availability.
> I can see having some kind of "timeout" for membership, but it should
> *not* be based on someone's role within the Gentoo developer community.
> Perhaps participation in the Foundation should count.
Yes or based on voting. Last time you vote in a foundation related
election, or matter if brought to the membership base for a vote. Then
maybe inactive suspension ~1yr, and then automatic removal ~2yrs.
Removed members can rejoin via membership form previously mention, or
some form of re-activation process, etc. Developers, staff members, and
the rest would have automatic sign up for foundation. Or be part of
recruitment process, quizzes, join foundation, ...
Although that gets murky wrt to new foundation members. Since there
should still likely be a 1yr requirement before qualification to vote.
So how to determine activity or inactivity there would need to be
> Remember, the Gentoo Foundation is what drives Gentoo (the distribution)
> or at least that's how it is supposed to be. Let's not think of things
> backwards. The current ideas seem to stem from the idea that the
> distribution controls the Foundation, when it should be the exact
> opposite. The Foundation *should* be a proponent of the community. It
> *should* take in what the community wants and try to steer the
> development pool in that direction. It should be a catalyst for
> positive change within Gentoo, not simply a reactionary body that does
> nothing more than echo the wishes of the developer community.
Given the condition. First we must grow legs, then we can learn to
stand, then walk, then run. Point being we have many issues to resolve.
Not discounting any of the above, I agree with pretty much all of it.
Right the foundation can barely deal with the smallest of tasks. I am
not talking about a man power issue necessarily. But there are just so
many issues to address. We really are in no position to play liaison or
to steer things at this time, IMHO.
We would like to work with and help out the council. And ideally long
term take on the roles mentioned. However that might be something that
we lay the foundation for, and subsequent boards, etc. Actually get to
explore and see as a reality.
> Remember guys, you have the ability to rebuild the
> Foundation how you see fit. Don't pass up this opportunity because of
> history or the status quo. Do what you think is best and everybody else
> be damned. ;]
And that's why we are trying to keep our focus narrow and on a single
target at a time for now. We are some what multi-tasking. So it's not
like we are all working on one thing. But we do have priorities. Of
which after reinstatement. I am pretty sure is the by laws, and
foundational matters like this. We just want to have a high completion,
and success rate :)
However as Roy stated, wrt to by laws and likely how the foundation
operates in general. Might be a multi-step process as we fine tune the
by laws, procedures, operations, etc.
We are not perfect, there is much to be discussed and decided upon. Not
to mention it's a balancing act with progress, and debate. So we very
well might go back on things, as part of the fine tuning and tweaking
William L. Thomson Jr.