| 1 |
Hi Michał, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
El 26/03/18 a las 23:51, Michał Górny escribió: |
| 4 |
> W dniu nie, 25.03.2018 o godzinie 21∶36 -0400, użytkownik Rich Freeman |
| 5 |
> napisał: |
| 6 |
>> On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 8:40 PM, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera |
| 7 |
>> (klondike) <klondike@g.o> wrote: |
| 8 |
>>> "Comments by selected people are welcome. " |
| 9 |
>> And this would be why I've maintained that having non-overlapping |
| 10 |
>> Council/Trustees is a problem waiting to happen. We have two |
| 11 |
>> governing bodies that disagree and continue to escalate things, in |
| 12 |
>> part because we don't allow an overlap in membership and there are |
| 13 |
>> only so many people interested in either job to go around. |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> My prediction is that everybody will continue to get indignant leading |
| 16 |
>> up to the next Council election, then the developers will vote to |
| 17 |
>> maintain the status quo, and then at the next Trustee election there |
| 18 |
>> will be at most 0-2 extra nominees above the number of open slots, who |
| 19 |
>> will probably be motivated mostly out of disagreement with the |
| 20 |
>> Council, and then we'll get to watch the infighting for another year. |
| 21 |
>> |
| 22 |
> The infighting won't die unless one or more of the following happens: |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> 1. Trustees understand that Council is not about wielding absolute power |
| 25 |
> but merely listening to developers. And developers are somewhat more |
| 26 |
> people than the ~5 devs who repeatedly abuse the mailing lists in their |
| 27 |
> protests, in order to force their will. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> 2. Trustees fix the past legal mess and find a reasonable way to protect |
| 30 |
> future Trustees from the screwups of previous boards, making it possible |
| 31 |
> for more people to be interested in Trustee positions, and effectively |
| 32 |
> reducing the problem of power-hungry, incompetent candidates. |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> 3. We disband the Foundation and lose all the assets but gain |
| 35 |
> the ability to freely developer the distro without people who first |
| 36 |
> generously offer their services to Gentoo, and then start demanding |
| 37 |
> absolute power in the return. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Please don't derail the topic. If you want to discuss the Board of |
| 41 |
Trustees and Foundation problems you are more than welcome to open a |
| 42 |
different thread, either on gentoo-project or maybe on gentoo-nfp (which |
| 43 |
may have less reach but be more appropriate). |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
I opened this thread to discuss proposals to fix the fact that with the |
| 46 |
permission change of the gentoo-dev mailing list ordered by the council, |
| 47 |
the majority of the stakeholders of the Gentoo Social Contract (anybody |
| 48 |
other than Gentoo developers and those vouched by them) can't neither |
| 49 |
propose nor discuss changes to said contract through the official |
| 50 |
channels. If you have any input in that regard, I'll be more than happy |
| 51 |
to read it. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
Klondike |
Archives