Re: [gentoo-nfp] Next meeting; a motion to have 1 type of Gentoo member.

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 6:54 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@g.o> wrote:
> On 11/07/2016 12:50 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> I think that is important to keep the group of people voting for
>> Council/Trustees the same as much as possible.  Otherwise you're going
>> to get even more reluctance for the two bodies to work together.
>
> Right, which would be done by requiring all foundation members to be
> developers.

Developers, contributors, users.  Whatever you want to call it.  As
long as they go through the current non-committer recruitment process
I don't think the name matters a great deal as long as we're
consistent.  They should still be subject to all the same community
standards (staff quiz, CoC, Comrel, etc).

> The drawback of that is that it removes possibility of things like
> "sponsor"-level membership (which could be a non-voting membership class
> if bylaws are changed to accomodate it) but allow for corporate
> sponsorships in a structured manner if that is necessary on a
> subscription basis. So far it seems like there hasn't been much need for
> this, though.

Well, such things don't exist today, but if there were ever a need it
could still be bolted on.  As long as this is non-voting I don't think
it really creates any issues on this particular issue.  No doubt there
are going to be lots of opinions on what it means to be a sponsor and
so on, but I think that's a different debate.

I think the goal is to align the voting pools for Council/Trustees and
have just one set of community standards for everybody, and I think
that makes sense.

-- 
Rich