1 |
This email did not make it to gentoo-nfp, although it made it to trustees@ |
2 |
on Apr 8. Including for comment. Thanks. |
3 |
|
4 |
---------- Forwarded message ---------- |
5 |
From: Daniel Robbins <drobbins@××××××.org> |
6 |
Date: Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 3:34 PM |
7 |
Subject: agenda items for April 8th meeting |
8 |
To: gentoo-nfp <gentoo-nfp@l.g.o> |
9 |
|
10 |
|
11 |
Hi All, |
12 |
|
13 |
For the upcoming trustees meeting, I would like the trustees to officially |
14 |
consider (as an agenda item) the proposal I made about a week ago, which |
15 |
consists of two parts, each of which can be voted on and considered |
16 |
independently: |
17 |
|
18 |
First, that the trustees enforce CoC for Council. Trustees would keep the |
19 |
Council accountable to consistently uphold the CoC, and ensure that the |
20 |
Council are accountable to the CoC themselves. The Council has a position |
21 |
of authority on the project and double-standards in CoC enforcement is |
22 |
undesirable and can create two classes of developers. |
23 |
|
24 |
The second agenda item would be establishing a position of User |
25 |
Representative, ideally two people who would sit on the Council and whose |
26 |
responsibility would be to represent non-Gentoo-developer Foundation |
27 |
members in Council decisions. This would be a trustee-appointed position. |
28 |
It can be paid (small consultants fee) or unpaid. I have no problems with |
29 |
Gentoo developers serving in this capacity. The criteria for appointment |
30 |
would be that the persons should have a passion for representing |
31 |
non-Gentoo-developer perspectives for the benefit of the larger Gentoo |
32 |
community and the project overall. |
33 |
|
34 |
Since I have had this specific proposal posted and available for |
35 |
consideration for approximately a week on the funtoo-project ML, I ask that |
36 |
these agenda items be considered in advance of any other agenda items |
37 |
submitted to the trustees, particularly those to formally acknowledge the |
38 |
legitimacy of the Council, which in effect are rubber-stamps of the |
39 |
Council's behavior (past, present and future) and are (in my opinion) |
40 |
something that would violate the bond trust between Foundation members and |
41 |
trustees by endorsing the questionable behavior of a specific sub-group of |
42 |
Gentoo developers that currently remains unaccountable to any |
43 |
non-developers. |
44 |
|
45 |
Once the above two (or similar) agenda items have been considered and |
46 |
(hopefully) there is some accountability of Council in regards to CoC, I |
47 |
have no problems with trustees endorsing Council as the official 'leaders' |
48 |
of Gentoo day-to-day development efforts. But I consider it dangerous and |
49 |
inappropriate for the Foundation to provide such endorsement without these |
50 |
two important means of accountability (CoC enforcement for Council as well |
51 |
as User Representatives) being in place first. |
52 |
|
53 |
Best, |
54 |
|
55 |
Daniel |