Gentoo Archives: gentoo-nfp

From: Richard Freeman <rich0@g.o>
To: Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o>
Cc: "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvicetto@g.o>, gentoo-nfp@l.g.o, gentoo-council@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-nfp] RE: [gentoo-council] Foundation by laws: new Article V
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 22:16:41
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-nfp] RE: [gentoo-council] Foundation by laws: new Article V by Roy Bamford
Roy Bamford wrote:
> The three remaining trustees were also nominated to stand for election > for the council. Had they all accepted and been elected to the council, > today we would be in the position of having trustees being a subset of > council. That would have totally destroyed the council/foundation split > that was one of the reasons the two bodies were created. > > We need rules to stop that situation from occuring. >
Is this the case? That we need to stop the council/trustees from overlapping? Is it true that the council/foundation split was one of the reasons the two bodies were created? My understanding is that the reason we have two bodies is so that people can contribute to either the council and/or the trustees based on their enthusiasm or ability to contribute, without being required to contribute to both. Also - due to the foundation being a US corporation it is likely the case that we can't have non-US-residents holding board positions. So, the split is a practical matter - not a matter of principle per se. I wasn't seriously involved back when the trustees were created so I won't presume to argue that I really know all the reasons for it being a separate body. However, I don't think that really matters - the only thing that matters is if we think it should be forced to be such today. In my opinion the benefits of joint council/trustee membership outweigh the downside. However, I'm sure things will go on fine either way - I'll trust the trustees/council to make the right decision.