| 1 |
On 01/05/2017 10:36 PM, Matthew Thode wrote: |
| 2 |
> Merging Trustees and Council / Developers and Foundation |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> First, let me state that this is a generic solution right now so as to |
| 5 |
> remain flexible to any needed changes, details still need to be ironed out. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Second, this is a request for comment. I'd appreciate it if you either |
| 8 |
> replied via email, replied via irc or replied via the comment on the |
| 9 |
> gdocs link below. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Thanks for going over this (if you are going to read this). |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> ==================== |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> When the Foundation and subsequently the council were set up, both |
| 16 |
> bodies had common members despite their declared different purposes. |
| 17 |
> Over the years the common members have vanished. Indeed, since 2008, |
| 18 |
> the Foundation bylaws have forbidden a single individual to serve on |
| 19 |
> council and as a trustee concurrently. |
| 20 |
> Thus the split in responsibilities identified when the foundation was |
| 21 |
> created has become more absolute. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I've always believed Unix philosophy states that modularization is good? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> This split is suboptimal for Gentoo (all of it). There is a reason why |
| 27 |
> normal corporations are structured the way they are and Gentoo has not |
| 28 |
> been like that since 2004. |
| 29 |
> This proposal sets out a plan to revert to the normal corporate |
| 30 |
> structure that Gentoo enjoyed before the Foundation and Council were |
| 31 |
> created. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Can you elaborate a bit more on why it is suboptimal? I see the text |
| 34 |
below, but is it really sufficient description for a major change? |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Kristian Fiskerstrand |
| 39 |
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net |
| 40 |
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3 |
Archives