| 1 |
Stuart Herbert wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> As a non-trustee, I have absolutely no visibility w.r.t. which trustees |
| 4 |
> are actively carrying out their duties, and which ones aren't. I'd like |
| 5 |
> to know more on that, because I wouldn't want to vote for any current |
| 6 |
> trustees who simply aren't pulling their weight there. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> How can you provide that information to the wider community? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
That's a problem that I am open to suggestions for.. I guess a count of |
| 12 |
mail participation is one good way to tell, but I could be spitting a |
| 13 |
bunch of useless crap to the rest of the trustees via email to get my |
| 14 |
"rank" up, so it's not necessarily a fair view. But yet, getting this |
| 15 |
information out to the community is important. I've had many |
| 16 |
discussions with many people (both devs and trustees) about this.. One |
| 17 |
thing I do not want to see the Foundation become is political, but yet |
| 18 |
there will inevitably be a certain amount of politics involved. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I guess ultimately people need to realize that it's not a fun job, and |
| 21 |
maybe that will deminish some of the push for politics. The future |
| 22 |
trustees will have to finalize how we move forward with protecting our |
| 23 |
code, and from what we are hearing the lawyers say that will most likely |
| 24 |
require some kind of assignment or license from the developers (with |
| 25 |
other options currently being researched). No matter which route is |
| 26 |
taken, it will be impossible to please everybody. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> I guess what you need is a group of trustees who are willing to put the |
| 29 |
> effort in to get such a scheme setup and running. Once you reach |
| 30 |
> critical mass, you can then employ an administrator |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Agreed. Like I mentioned before, maybe we should consider the "voting |
| 34 |
vs non-voting, paid vs. non-paid memberships" an option for the future. |
| 35 |
Right now I feel we need to keep it simple. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
> Or you still have your voting deadline, and then expel everyone who |
| 38 |
> doesn't vote. Think of it as an annual clearout of inactive accounts ;-) |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> (Personally, I'm in favour of an opt-in approach to voting, rather than |
| 41 |
> mandatory voting. But the idea's worth floating) |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
I don't think that would be too fair to people who miss a vote for valid |
| 45 |
reasons, or who may wish to protest a vote. That is, in a way, forcing |
| 46 |
a mandatory vote by expelling people who do not vote. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
Cheers, |
| 49 |
-C |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
-- |
| 52 |
Corey Shields |
| 53 |
Gentoo Linux Infrastructure Team and Devrel Team |
| 54 |
Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees |
| 55 |
http://www.gentoo.org/~cshields |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
-- |
| 58 |
gentoo-trustees@g.o mailing list |
Archives