Gentoo Archives: gentoo-nfp

From: "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvicetto@g.o>
To: Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-nfp@l.g.o, trustees@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-nfp] Points to Ponder for Sundays Meeting.
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 20:31:17
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-nfp] Points to Ponder for Sundays Meeting. by Roy Bamford
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 7:42 PM, Roy Bamford  wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 2008.04.18 19:09, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: > [snip] > > > > > From the previous mails, my understanding is that the point about > > membership to the Foundation is not to be discussed on this meeting, > > but on a later date. Am I correct? > > > [snip] > > > > > > > Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto > > Gentoo- forums/userrel/Sparc/KDE > > > > Jorge, > > The topic will not be avoided. I expect it to come up under the Bylaws > section of the agenda but I doubt if any firm decisions will be made > other than to 'fix the membership rules'.
That's what I thought. I'm sorry if my wording wasn't clear.
> > My preference is to get a set of bylaws that the trustees can > unanimously agree to adopt so we can move on. The bylaws can be fine > tuned later. > > 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. >
The 1 year membership always applied to "Gentoo dev" in its broadest sense, thus ebuild devs and official Gentoo Staff.
> 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. >
I'm very interested in the discussion on the Foundation membership and retirement, but from your reply above, I'll let it be until a later time.
> I did consider something to allow trustees to vote to extend membership > but its not needed. Trustees can appoint officers, that's good enough > (and less controversial). Anyone can be an officer. > > Its probably a controversial subject with opinions shaped by > discussions on a mailing list rather than on IRC.
I see we're using the term officers with 2 very different meanings: you're talking about officers as the "board of trustees", whilst I was talking as officers as "election officers". My apologies for confusing the meaning.
> > I like the sound of your Gentoo elections project. Maybe the Foundation > needs to appoint a team of returning officers, whose job would be just > that. That's a little 'tongue in cheek' but not completely. It could be > the first step in the Foundation actively taking on some of the non > technical tasks presently managed by the council. That was one of the > long term goals in my manifesto. > > - --
I think the Gentoo elections project would fall neatly under the Foundation scope as it clearly isn't a technical project. Having cleared the double meaning on "officers", I believe the election project, as other gentoo projects, should conduct the selection of members to serve as "election officers" - no need for the Foundation to get directly involved.
> > Regards, > > Roy Bamford > (NeddySeagoon) a member of > gentoo-ops > forum-mods > treecleaners > trustees > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) > > iEYEARECAAYFAkgI+ZEACgkQTE4/y7nJvavkSwCgxdQ3NgcGvekX84l03dmVoS3y > m9sAoNP6lYzBZsMIp9DafN9rhhijwZ1g > =fbCO > > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > -- > gentoo-nfp@l.g.o mailing list > >
Regards, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto Gentoo- forums/userrel/Sparc/KDE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: iEYEARECAAYFAkgJBQUACgkQcAWygvVEyAKhnQCgoMCGPA5UTSFFdkkcx+QiWlRX XBkAn0wBruoOjyAatGZHp/3gJurGkUwd =vnpy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- gentoo-nfp@l.g.o mailing list