List Archive: gentoo-nfp
Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.c.f. bug 424647
>> Except that a fork doesn't limit the foundations powers, it just
>> influences the state of Gentoo after all the developers abandon it.
> If a majority of developers abandon Gentoo (a drastic outcome, I'll
> admit), I think we can all agree that the state of Gentoo will be far
> worse than it is now. This is something to be avoided, which in
> practice limits the foundation's powers, unless the foundation is more
> focused on proving a point than furthering Gentoo.
Exactly, if they are focussed on proving a point then it doesn't limit
there powers at all.
Even if they have the best interests of Gentoo at heart their powers
ain't limited, only their options are.
> No argument there. But keep in mind that the devs should drive the
> rules - not the other way around.
Not sure I really understand this. When you refer to dev's do you mean
all dev's individually or devs that are represented by say the Council?
Also how would rules drive a dev?
> Again, that is fine - as long as both have the same constituency. If
> they have different constituencies then this could turn into a huge mess
> - as both groups would keep getting re-elected by their different
> constituencies, and the issues wouldn't actually get resolved.
While I understand the point I have to ask, do the Foundation and
Council really have different Constituencies? It isn't like one is dev
only and the other is open to anybody. Any differences between the 2
Constituencies are minor at worse.
> My argument isn't really one of what the council/trustee's authority
> should be. My point is that for gentoo to be successful these groups
> need to work well together. We can't really afford for either group to
> discover a mandate to be an overseer to the other - it will just lead to
> a massive waste of resources that will only serve to weaken the distro.
> I don't think it is constructive when we dream up all kinds of
> scenarios where the two bodies can enter into open war against the other.
Which I completely agree with. The Foundation and Council need to work
together. But I would also like both of them to know exactly where they
stand. I would also like a structure that acknowledges that even tho
the 2 groups need to work together that there is a possibility that they
might not. If the rules ain't clear then are we too have another
incident where we argue about whether an new Council election is to be
held? I believe that at least with my suggestion the Foundation could
have said, yes elections needs to be held, or no they do not. That
wouldn't stop dev's from voting the Council in again, but it would have
provided clarity (<hypothetically> whether you agree with the clarity
would be a matter to bring up at the "next" election). Another
important fact is that it wouldn't involve the Council deciding its own
email@example.com mailing list