Gentoo Archives: gentoo-nfp

From: Ferris McCormick <fmccor@g.o>
To: Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-nfp@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-nfp] Points to Ponder for Sundays Meeting.
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 22:48:16
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-nfp] Points to Ponder for Sundays Meeting. by Chris Gianelloni
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 15:25:16 -0700
Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o> wrote:

> On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 20:42 +0100, Roy Bamford wrote: > > 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. > > > > 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. > > If only (essentially) current Gentoo developers are able to be > Foundation members, what's exactly the point? I'm seriously asking > here. One thing that has consistently been brought up is that there is > no representation for non-developers in the Foundation. The Gentoo > Foundation is supposed to be about the Gentoo community, not just a > selective and restricted subset of said community. > > I can see having some kind of "timeout" for membership, but it should > *not* be based on someone's role within the Gentoo developer community. > Perhaps participation in the Foundation should count. For example, I > should be able to quit Gentoo today, but as long as I still continue to > vote and provide input on Foundation matters, I should be allowed. Now, > once I quit contributing to the Foundation, I see no reason why I > shouldn't lose my status, but I should also be able to get it back > without having to become a developer for a year... again. > > Remember, the Gentoo Foundation is what drives Gentoo (the distribution) > or at least that's how it is supposed to be. Let's not think of things > backwards. The current ideas seem to stem from the idea that the > distribution controls the Foundation, when it should be the exact > opposite. The Foundation *should* be a proponent of the community. It > *should* take in what the community wants and try to steer the > development pool in that direction. It should be a catalyst for > positive change within Gentoo, not simply a reactionary body that does > nothing more than echo the wishes of the developer community. After > all, if it's nothing but the developers, why make it separate or have > differing rules? Why not just make someone a Foundation member on day 1 > of their developer status and revoke it on the last day? Wouldn't that > fit in better with any ideas that revolve around the distribution > controlling Foundation membership? > > It's my personal opinion that the Foundation should have the ability to > control its own membership. Currently, membership is decided by an > external third party (the Gentoo distribution's Developer Relations > team) and based on some fairly arbitrary term of service. That worked > out great for the *original* Foundation, but really needs to be > rethought. Remember guys, you have the ability to rebuild the > Foundation how you see fit. Don't pass up this opportunity because of > history or the status quo. Do what you think is best and everybody else > be damned. ;] > > -- > Chris Gianelloni > Release Engineering Strategic Lead > Games Developer > -- > gentoo-nfp@l.g.o mailing list >
- -- Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@g.o> Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Devrel, Userrel, Trustees) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFICSUqQa6M3+I///cRAihGAJ4njqpck7507Hp+JaRz2DCuql2otwCg4gvP H0VsOMRWFA4K5Wjn17R+tC4= =r9df -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----