| 1 |
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 7:44 PM, NP-Hardass <NP-Hardass@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> The proposal does not make all members Gentoo staff. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Then, IMO, it isn't an improvement. Certainly my intent was for it to |
| 5 |
make all Foundation members Gentoo staff. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
I think that all Foundation members should be staff, and all staff |
| 8 |
should be Foundation members. If somebody isn't qualified to be in |
| 9 |
one, they shouldn't be in the other. If somebody doesn't want to be |
| 10 |
in one, they shouldn't be in the other. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I'm not suggesting that there should be some kind of onerous |
| 13 |
requirement to be staff. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I think one of the biggest problems that you need to solve if you want |
| 16 |
to try to reform the meta-structure is that we have multiple |
| 17 |
constituencies right now. My goal would be to fix that. If somebody |
| 18 |
isn't active enough to be considered staff, then they shouldn't be |
| 19 |
voting on the governance of the distro. If they're going to be voting |
| 20 |
on governance, then they should be well-versed in how things work. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Rich |
Archives