-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
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:
> > 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?
> > Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
> > Gentoo- forums/userrel/Sparc/KDE
> 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
> 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
> 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.
> Roy Bamford
> (NeddySeagoon) a member of
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
email@example.com mailing list