| 1 |
On 01/05/2017 03:57 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 01/05/2017 10:36 PM, Matthew Thode wrote: |
| 3 |
>> When the Foundation and subsequently the council were set up, both |
| 4 |
>> bodies had common members despite their declared different purposes. |
| 5 |
>> Over the years the common members have vanished. Indeed, since 2008, |
| 6 |
>> the Foundation bylaws have forbidden a single individual to serve on |
| 7 |
>> council and as a trustee concurrently. |
| 8 |
>> Thus the split in responsibilities identified when the foundation was |
| 9 |
>> created has become more absolute. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> I've always believed Unix philosophy states that modularization is good? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I'm not saying we can't be modular, in fact I'd prefer that. What I'm |
| 15 |
advocating is switching from Gentoo having two alternate heads to having |
| 16 |
one, with subcommittees (or whatever you want to call them) for each set |
| 17 |
purpose. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
>> This split is suboptimal for Gentoo (all of it). There is a reason why |
| 21 |
>> normal corporations are structured the way they are and Gentoo has not |
| 22 |
>> been like that since 2004. |
| 23 |
>> This proposal sets out a plan to revert to the normal corporate |
| 24 |
>> structure that Gentoo enjoyed before the Foundation and Council were |
| 25 |
>> created. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> Can you elaborate a bit more on why it is suboptimal? I see the text |
| 28 |
> below, but is it really sufficient description for a major change? |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Suboptimal for having different voting pools meaning possibly |
| 33 |
conflicting goals. There's also the denial of the technical side of |
| 34 |
Gentoo still being under the legal side, even if we don't wish this to |
| 35 |
be the case. Keeping Gentoo self-aligned and self-consistent is the goal. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire) |
Archives