Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-nfp
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-nfp: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o>
From: Richard Freeman <rich0@g.o>
Subject: Re: RE: [gentoo-council] Foundation by laws: new Article V
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 18:16:21 -0400
Roy Bamford wrote:
> The three remaining trustees were also nominated to stand for election 
> for the council. Had they all accepted and been elected to the council, 
> today we would be in the position of having trustees being a subset of 
> council. That would have totally destroyed the council/foundation split 
> that was one of the reasons the two bodies were created.
> 
> We need rules to stop that situation from occuring.
> 

Is this the case?  That we need to stop the council/trustees from
overlapping?  Is it true that the council/foundation split was one of
the reasons the two bodies were created?

My understanding is that the reason we have two bodies is so that people
can contribute to either the council and/or the trustees based on their
enthusiasm or ability to contribute, without being required to
contribute to both.  Also - due to the foundation being a US corporation
it is likely the case that we can't have non-US-residents holding board
positions.  So, the split is a practical matter - not a matter of
principle per se.

I wasn't seriously involved back when the trustees were created so I 
won't presume to argue that I really know all the reasons for it being a 
separate body.  However, I don't think that really matters - the only 
thing that matters is if we think it should be forced to be such today.

In my opinion the benefits of joint council/trustee membership outweigh 
the downside.  However, I'm sure things will go on fine either way - 
I'll trust the trustees/council to make the right decision.


Replies:
Re: RE: [gentoo-council] Foundation by laws: new Article V
-- Roy Bamford
Re: RE: [gentoo-council] Foundation by laws: new Article V
-- Ferris McCormick
References:
Re: RE: [gentoo-council] Foundation by laws: new Article V
-- Roy Bamford
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-nfp: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: RE: [gentoo-council] Foundation by laws: new Article V
Next by thread:
Re: RE: [gentoo-council] Foundation by laws: new Article V
Previous by date:
Re: Bylaws question - 4.9, purposes
Next by date:
Re: Bylaws question - 4.4 Continuation of membership: Loss of interest


Updated Jun 17, 2009

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-nfp mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.