Gentoo Archives: gentoo-nfp

From: Ned Ludd <solar@g.o>
To: gentoo-nfp@l.g.o
Cc: gentoo-core@l.g.o, gentoo-trustees@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-nfp] Re: [gentoo-core] Upcoming elections
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 11:52:11
Message-Id: 1113220302.10936.12.camel@localhost
In Reply to: [gentoo-nfp] Re: [gentoo-core] Upcoming elections by Spider
On Mon, 2005-04-11 at 13:20 +0200, Spider wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-04-11 at 12:29 +0200, Sven Vermeulen wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 10:33:42PM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote: > > > 1. Members must be currently active Gentoo developers who have been > > > developers for at least a year. > > > 2. Members must have requested membership. If you don't want to be > > > a member of the foundation, you shouldn't have to be. (Indeed, the > > > actual role of the foundation is quite limited.) > > > > I agree with this proposal, with the addendum that membership should be > > rerequested each year. It gives more work but keeps the membership list > > clean over the years with people interested in the bureaucracy of dealing > > with IP, funding requests and dealing with Social Contract complaints. > > Can you make it every two years? One year isn't long enough to fall > beyond the "active in the last year" limit, two is.
I think two years is to long. We have had a board of 13 for almost a year now and as you can see there in the short period of time that has passed already that many have already become inactive. By changing to a two year setup we could potentially shoot ourselves in the foots by having a board that can grow stale. The members that have done a good job and it's visible to our devs however will be renominated and reelected. With that said, I think cshields has done pretty good job the past year looking out for our Gentoo interests and I'd like to see him right back in there for another term. -- Ned Ludd <solar@g.o> -- gentoo-nfp@g.o mailing list


Subject Author
[gentoo-nfp] Re: [gentoo-core] Upcoming elections Thierry Carrez <koon@g.o>