| 1 |
On Mon, 2005-04-11 at 13:20 +0200, Spider wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 2005-04-11 at 12:29 +0200, Sven Vermeulen wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 10:33:42PM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > 1. Members must be currently active Gentoo developers who have been |
| 5 |
> > > developers for at least a year. |
| 6 |
> > > 2. Members must have requested membership. If you don't want to be |
| 7 |
> > > a member of the foundation, you shouldn't have to be. (Indeed, the |
| 8 |
> > > actual role of the foundation is quite limited.) |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > I agree with this proposal, with the addendum that membership should be |
| 11 |
> > rerequested each year. It gives more work but keeps the membership list |
| 12 |
> > clean over the years with people interested in the bureaucracy of dealing |
| 13 |
> > with IP, funding requests and dealing with Social Contract complaints. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Can you make it every two years? One year isn't long enough to fall |
| 16 |
> beyond the "active in the last year" limit, two is. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I think two years is to long. |
| 19 |
We have had a board of 13 for almost a year now |
| 20 |
and as you can see there in the short period of time that has passed |
| 21 |
already that many have already become inactive. By changing to a two |
| 22 |
year setup we could potentially shoot ourselves in the foots by having a |
| 23 |
board that can grow stale. The members that have done a good job and |
| 24 |
it's visible to our devs however will be renominated and reelected. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
With that said, I think cshields has done pretty good job the past year |
| 27 |
looking out for our Gentoo interests and I'd like to see him right back |
| 28 |
in there for another term. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Ned Ludd <solar@g.o> |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-nfp@g.o mailing list |
Archives