| 1 |
On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 20:42 +0100, Roy Bamford wrote: |
| 2 |
> I have a vested interest in the definition of a "full developer" I want |
| 3 |
> to propose something like "Gentoo developers become members of the |
| 4 |
> Gentoo Foundation on the first anniversary of their join date, as held |
| 5 |
> in the individuals LDAP record." That makes it nice and unambiguous |
| 6 |
> for election officials. It also defines developers as anyone who has an |
| 7 |
> LDAP record. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> and "Foundation membership ceases at the close of the trustee election |
| 10 |
> following the members retirement from the project." |
| 11 |
> I don't want serving trustees retired unless they resign from the |
| 12 |
> Foundation separately under its bylaws. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
If only (essentially) current Gentoo developers are able to be |
| 15 |
Foundation members, what's exactly the point? I'm seriously asking |
| 16 |
here. One thing that has consistently been brought up is that there is |
| 17 |
no representation for non-developers in the Foundation. The Gentoo |
| 18 |
Foundation is supposed to be about the Gentoo community, not just a |
| 19 |
selective and restricted subset of said community. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I can see having some kind of "timeout" for membership, but it should |
| 22 |
*not* be based on someone's role within the Gentoo developer community. |
| 23 |
Perhaps participation in the Foundation should count. For example, I |
| 24 |
should be able to quit Gentoo today, but as long as I still continue to |
| 25 |
vote and provide input on Foundation matters, I should be allowed. Now, |
| 26 |
once I quit contributing to the Foundation, I see no reason why I |
| 27 |
shouldn't lose my status, but I should also be able to get it back |
| 28 |
without having to become a developer for a year... again. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Remember, the Gentoo Foundation is what drives Gentoo (the distribution) |
| 31 |
or at least that's how it is supposed to be. Let's not think of things |
| 32 |
backwards. The current ideas seem to stem from the idea that the |
| 33 |
distribution controls the Foundation, when it should be the exact |
| 34 |
opposite. The Foundation *should* be a proponent of the community. It |
| 35 |
*should* take in what the community wants and try to steer the |
| 36 |
development pool in that direction. It should be a catalyst for |
| 37 |
positive change within Gentoo, not simply a reactionary body that does |
| 38 |
nothing more than echo the wishes of the developer community. After |
| 39 |
all, if it's nothing but the developers, why make it separate or have |
| 40 |
differing rules? Why not just make someone a Foundation member on day 1 |
| 41 |
of their developer status and revoke it on the last day? Wouldn't that |
| 42 |
fit in better with any ideas that revolve around the distribution |
| 43 |
controlling Foundation membership? |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
It's my personal opinion that the Foundation should have the ability to |
| 46 |
control its own membership. Currently, membership is decided by an |
| 47 |
external third party (the Gentoo distribution's Developer Relations |
| 48 |
team) and based on some fairly arbitrary term of service. That worked |
| 49 |
out great for the *original* Foundation, but really needs to be |
| 50 |
rethought. Remember guys, you have the ability to rebuild the |
| 51 |
Foundation how you see fit. Don't pass up this opportunity because of |
| 52 |
history or the status quo. Do what you think is best and everybody else |
| 53 |
be damned. ;] |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
-- |
| 56 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 57 |
Release Engineering Strategic Lead |
| 58 |
Games Developer |
| 59 |
-- |
| 60 |
gentoo-nfp@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives