Gentoo Archives: gentoo-nfp

From: Thierry Carrez <koon@g.o>
To: gentoo-nfp@l.g.o
Cc: gentoo-core@l.g.o, gentoo-trustees@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-nfp] Re: [gentoo-core] Upcoming elections
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:53:16
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-nfp] Re: [gentoo-core] Upcoming elections by Ned Ludd
Ned Ludd 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 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.
Looks like Grant was talking about "foundation membership" conditions and terms, which has little to do with "trustee election candidate" conditions (and term when elected). The "members" vote to designate the "trustees". In the (proposed? current?) bylaws, the length of election term is set to one year (article 5 section 5). Also note that Article 4 defines how members are designated, and basically it means being nominated by "current members" (whatever that is), not being a self-proclaimed-interested one-year-old dev... and membership once acquired is revoked only exceptionally by a 2/3 members majority vote. -- Koon -- gentoo-nfp@g.o mailing list