| 1 |
On Thu, 5 Jan 2017 15:36:45 -0600 |
| 2 |
Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Possible Solution: |
| 5 |
> In order to solve this Gentoo needs to have a combined electorate, |
| 6 |
> meaning those that would vote for Council would also vote for Trustees |
| 7 |
> and visa-versa. This would ensure that everyone’s needs are represented. |
| 8 |
> We should have a single combined governing body, let’s call it ‘The |
| 9 |
> Board’. This is so that conflicts between Council and Trustees (as they |
| 10 |
> exist now) would have a straightforward resolution. This new ‘Board’ |
| 11 |
> would be able to use the existing project metastructure to delegate |
| 12 |
> roles to various groups (Comrel, Infra, etc would still exist, but under |
| 13 |
> this new Board). |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Well, this kind of superficial description does not raise any immediate |
| 16 |
concerns. However, the devil's in the detail, and if you really want |
| 17 |
comments, you should start providing some. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
As far as I understand, this would effectively require every developer |
| 20 |
to be a member of the Foundation. I think that Foundation membership is |
| 21 |
more legally binding than 'being a developer = having commit access'. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
One thing I'm particular worried about is the potential of 'US |
| 24 |
embargo'. What if a particular developer/recruit is/will not be legally |
| 25 |
allowed to be a member of Gentoo Foundation? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Best regards, |
| 29 |
Michał Górny |
| 30 |
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/> |
Archives