| 1 |
On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 6:54 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 11/07/2016 12:50 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 3 |
>> I think that is important to keep the group of people voting for |
| 4 |
>> Council/Trustees the same as much as possible. Otherwise you're going |
| 5 |
>> to get even more reluctance for the two bodies to work together. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Right, which would be done by requiring all foundation members to be |
| 8 |
> developers |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I would like to keep the term "Developers" |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Staff Developers (docs, pr, etc) |
| 13 |
Ebuild Developers (full commit access) |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
If someone wants to join the foundation they would need to become at |
| 16 |
least a Staff Developer. |
| 17 |
Then all members would be developers. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> The drawback of that is that it removes possibility of things like |
| 21 |
> "sponsor"-level membership (which could be a non-voting membership class |
| 22 |
> if bylaws are changed to accomodate it) but allow for corporate |
| 23 |
> sponsorships in a structured manner if that is necessary on a |
| 24 |
> subscription basis. So far it seems like there hasn't been much need for |
| 25 |
> this, though. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> -- |
| 28 |
> Kristian Fiskerstrand |
| 29 |
> OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net |
| 30 |
> fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3 |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
David Abbott |
Archives