| 1 |
Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: |
| 2 |
> It looks like our social contract doesn't prohibit Gentoo from being |
| 3 |
> dependent upon a single sponsor or corporation. In the interests of |
| 4 |
> keeping Gentoo run by the developers rather than any outside party, how |
| 5 |
> about the following addition to the Social Contract? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> <heading>We will be run by the Development Community</> |
| 8 |
> Gentoo will be run by the development community. We will never allow |
| 9 |
> ourselves to be reliant upon a single sponsor or corporation. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
Er personally I think it's a nice mission statement, but it doesn't have |
| 12 |
much meaning, and consequently little place in a `Social Contract'. After |
| 13 |
all, Gentoo _is_ run by the devs, and I don't actually see how that could |
| 14 |
change. Any corporation would firstly be mad to try and take it over since |
| 15 |
the devs wouldn't have it. They don't even accept the authority of people |
| 16 |
they voted for ;) Additionally, the consequent negative publicity would be |
| 17 |
a PR nightmare; imagine the blog entries and the malevolence they'd |
| 18 |
unleash! |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
As for getting into a situation of over-reliance, that's a good stance to |
| 21 |
take, as an objective- not a statement of fact. Again, I don't think the |
| 22 |
Council would let it get to that. Maybe it would be useful as one of your |
| 23 |
objectives tho'. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives