Gentoo Archives: gentoo-nfp

From: Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o>
To: gentoo-nfp@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-nfp] Points to Ponder for Sundays Meeting.
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 22:26:36
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-nfp] Points to Ponder for Sundays Meeting. by Roy Bamford
On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 20:42 +0100, Roy Bamford wrote:
> I have a vested interest in the definition of a "full developer" I want > to propose something like "Gentoo developers become members of the > Gentoo Foundation on the first anniversary of their join date, as held > in the individuals LDAP record." That makes it nice and unambiguous > for election officials. It also defines developers as anyone who has an > LDAP record. > > and "Foundation membership ceases at the close of the trustee election > following the members retirement from the project." > I don't want serving trustees retired unless they resign from the > Foundation separately under its bylaws.
If only (essentially) current Gentoo developers are able to be Foundation members, what's exactly the point? I'm seriously asking here. One thing that has consistently been brought up is that there is no representation for non-developers in the Foundation. The Gentoo Foundation is supposed to be about the Gentoo community, not just a selective and restricted subset of said community. I can see having some kind of "timeout" for membership, but it should *not* be based on someone's role within the Gentoo developer community. Perhaps participation in the Foundation should count. For example, I should be able to quit Gentoo today, but as long as I still continue to vote and provide input on Foundation matters, I should be allowed. Now, once I quit contributing to the Foundation, I see no reason why I shouldn't lose my status, but I should also be able to get it back without having to become a developer for a year... again. Remember, the Gentoo Foundation is what drives Gentoo (the distribution) or at least that's how it is supposed to be. Let's not think of things backwards. The current ideas seem to stem from the idea that the distribution controls the Foundation, when it should be the exact opposite. The Foundation *should* be a proponent of the community. It *should* take in what the community wants and try to steer the development pool in that direction. It should be a catalyst for positive change within Gentoo, not simply a reactionary body that does nothing more than echo the wishes of the developer community. After all, if it's nothing but the developers, why make it separate or have differing rules? Why not just make someone a Foundation member on day 1 of their developer status and revoke it on the last day? Wouldn't that fit in better with any ideas that revolve around the distribution controlling Foundation membership? It's my personal opinion that the Foundation should have the ability to control its own membership. Currently, membership is decided by an external third party (the Gentoo distribution's Developer Relations team) and based on some fairly arbitrary term of service. That worked out great for the *original* Foundation, but really needs to be rethought. Remember guys, you have the ability to rebuild the Foundation how you see fit. Don't pass up this opportunity because of history or the status quo. Do what you think is best and everybody else be damned. ;] -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Games Developer -- gentoo-nfp@l.g.o mailing list


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-nfp] Points to Ponder for Sundays Meeting. Ferris McCormick <fmccor@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-nfp] Points to Ponder for Sundays Meeting. "William L. Thomson Jr." <wltjr@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-nfp] Points to Ponder for Sundays Meeting. Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-nfp] Points to Ponder for Sundays Meeting. Ferris McCormick <fmccor@g.o>