On 2011.08.02 16:49, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 11:42 AM, William Hubbs <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > But, you are saying that the council has to approve changes for
> > 39 before they can come to a vote. This would mean that say a
> > of developers doesn't like something in glep 39, but the council
> > doesn't approve the change. That change will never come to a vote.
> > other words, the council has control of the rules that govern it.
> > that what you are intending?
> Arguably the current rules are pretty ambiguous for the council. The
> rules are fairly explicit for the Foundation, where there are rules
> about having membership-convened meetings/etc.
The trustees are legally accountable and responsible for the operation
of the Gentoo Foundation Inc. Some things in the bylaws are there to
comply with statutes.
The Gentoo council has no legal standing whatsoever, which I have
already said (at FOSEDEM) makes me a little nervous as a trustee, since
the council makes decisions on behalf of Gentoo that the Foundation
would be held both accountable and responsible for. There have been no
issues with that, yet.
Maybe its time to reorganise Gentoo along standard corporate lines
again, as it was before drobbins left. If we go in that direction, the
council becomes a technical committee that is part of the Foundation.
GLEP39 is no longer needed and the Foundation bylaws are amended to
reflect the new structure.
Such a major change would probably need to be put to a vote of
Foundation members as we would be changing the make up of what is
legally a company. (Members are equivelent to share/stock holders)
Note: Foundation members and Gentoo developers are two intersecting
This gives rise to all sorts of interesting questions, opportunities
possibilities and challenges. Please discuss.
(Neddyseagoon) a member of