1 |
First off, I'd like to say that I think we're actually mostly in |
2 |
agreement, but maybe talking past each other slightly. |
3 |
|
4 |
Alistair Bush wrote: |
5 |
>> No argument there. But keep in mind that the devs should drive the |
6 |
>> rules - not the other way around. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> Not sure I really understand this. When you refer to dev's do you mean |
9 |
> all dev's individually or devs that are represented by say the Council? |
10 |
> Also how would rules drive a dev? |
11 |
> |
12 |
|
13 |
I guess I'm referring to both in a sense. The purpose of rules is to |
14 |
make Gentoo work well - they don't exist for their own sake. I guess |
15 |
I'm trying to advocate being pragmatic with regard to rules. If an |
16 |
overwhelming majority of devs want something to happen, it should happen |
17 |
- we shouldn't delay decisions by months to hold elections/etc. On the |
18 |
other hand, I do agree with you that we don't want to be so loose that |
19 |
we just presume to know the desires of the devs without bothering to ask |
20 |
them if a matter is sufficiently important. |
21 |
|
22 |
> While I understand the point I have to ask, do the Foundation and |
23 |
> Council really have different Constituencies? It isn't like one is dev |
24 |
> only and the other is open to anybody. Any differences between the 2 |
25 |
> Constituencies are minor at worse. |
26 |
|
27 |
Currently they are essentially the same. However, the reason I bring |
28 |
this up is that there is some debate over whether the foundation |
29 |
membership should be substantially expanded beyond just gentoo devs |
30 |
(possibly including end-users, or those willing to pay a membership fee |
31 |
of some sort). These kinds of situations could lead to the sorts of |
32 |
conflicts I'd like to avoid, as now you have two boards with different |
33 |
agendas in charge of aspects of the same project. |
34 |
-- |
35 |
gentoo-nfp@l.g.o mailing list |