Gentoo Archives: gentoo-nfp

From: Alec Warner <antarus@g.o>
To: gentoo-nfp <gentoo-nfp@l.g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-nfp] Next meeting; a motion to have 1 type of Gentoo member.
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2016 18:47:25
Message-Id: CAAr7Pr8qw8b8P=8YsnVzPdygp9qiG6_=OzQgCpB+ubUm_Hod7w@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-nfp] Next meeting; a motion to have 1 type of Gentoo member. by Ulrich Mueller
1 On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 2:52 AM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote:
2
3 > >>>>> On Mon, 7 Nov 2016, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
4 >
5 > > I would like to point out that the bylaws repeatedly reference
6 > > "Gentoo developers", c.f e.g Section 4.3: "Active Gentoo developers
7 > > who are not members of the Foundation may apply for membership", and
8 > > "Applicants who are not Gentoo developers need to cite verifiable
9 > > evidence of contributing to Gentoo or to the stated aims of the
10 > > Gentoo Foundation Inc. "
11 >
12 > Also, GLEP 39 uses the term ("a project is a group of developers",
13 > "council members represent all developers"). Since it was incepted by
14 > an all-developers vote, it would presumably require an all-developers
15 > vote again for such a change.
16 >
17 > I would suggest keeping the established terminology there. Developers
18 > have taken a variant of the quizzes. They can join projects and vote
19 > for the council. Please don't create confusion by inventing new terms
20 > like "contributor".
21 >
22
23 Seems reasonable, thanks for your input.
24
25
26 >
27 > Ulrich
28 >