Re: [gentoo-nfp] Points to Ponder for Sundays Meeting.

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 7:42 PM, Roy Bamford  wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>  Hash: SHA1
>
>  On 2008.04.18 19:09, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
>  [snip]
>
> >
>  > From the previous mails, my understanding is that the point about
>  > membership to the Foundation is not to be discussed on this meeting,
>  > but on a later date. Am I correct?
>  >
>  [snip]
>
> >
>  >
>  > Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
>  > Gentoo- forums/userrel/Sparc/KDE
>  >
>
>  Jorge,
>
>  The topic will not be avoided. I expect it to come up under the Bylaws
>  section of the agenda but I doubt if any firm decisions will be made
>  other than to 'fix the membership rules'.

That's what I thought. I'm sorry if my wording wasn't clear.

>
>  My preference is to get a set of bylaws that the trustees can
>  unanimously agree to adopt so we can move on. The bylaws can be fine
>  tuned later.
>
>  I have a vested interest in the definition of a "full developer" I want
>  to propose something like "Gentoo developers become members of the
>  Gentoo Foundation on the first anniversary of their join date, as held
>  in the individuals LDAP record." That makes it nice and unambiguous
>  for election officials. It also defines developers as anyone who has an
>  LDAP record.
>

The 1 year membership always applied to "Gentoo dev" in its broadest
sense, thus ebuild devs and official Gentoo Staff.

>  and "Foundation membership ceases at the close of the trustee election
>  following the members retirement from the project."
>  I don't want serving trustees retired unless they resign from the
>  Foundation separately under its bylaws.
>

I'm very interested in the discussion on the Foundation membership and
retirement, but from your reply above, I'll let it be until a later
time.

>  I did consider something to allow trustees to vote to extend membership
>  but its not needed. Trustees can appoint officers, that's good enough
>  (and less controversial). Anyone can be an officer.
>
>  Its probably a controversial subject with opinions shaped by
>  discussions on a mailing list rather than on IRC.

I see we're using the term officers with 2 very different meanings:
you're talking about officers as the "board of trustees", whilst I was
talking as officers as "election officers". My apologies for confusing
the meaning.

>
>  I like the sound of your Gentoo elections project. Maybe the Foundation
>  needs to appoint a team of returning officers, whose job would be just
>  that. That's a little 'tongue in cheek' but not completely. It could be
>  the first step in the Foundation actively taking on some of the non
>  technical tasks presently managed by the council. That was one of the
>  long term goals in my manifesto.
>
>  - --

I think the Gentoo elections project would fall neatly under the
Foundation scope as it clearly isn't a technical project. Having
cleared the double meaning on "officers", I believe the election
project, as other gentoo projects, should conduct the selection of
members to serve as "election officers" - no need for the Foundation
to get directly involved.

>
> Regards,
>
>  Roy Bamford
>  (NeddySeagoon) a member of
>  gentoo-ops
>  forum-mods
>  treecleaners
>  trustees
>  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>  Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
>
>  iEYEARECAAYFAkgI+ZEACgkQTE4/y7nJvavkSwCgxdQ3NgcGvekX84l03dmVoS3y
>  m9sAoNP6lYzBZsMIp9DafN9rhhijwZ1g
>  =fbCO
>
>
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>  --
>  gentoo-nfp@l.g.o mailing list
>
>


Regards,

Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
Gentoo- forums/userrel/Sparc/KDE
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: http://getfiregpg.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkgJBQUACgkQcAWygvVEyAKhnQCgoMCGPA5UTSFFdkkcx+QiWlRX
XBkAn0wBruoOjyAatGZHp/3gJurGkUwd
=vnpy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-nfp@l.g.o mailing list