1 |
On 10/13/2016 07:53 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
2 |
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 7:44 PM, NP-Hardass <NP-Hardass@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
>> The proposal does not make all members Gentoo staff. |
4 |
> |
5 |
> Then, IMO, it isn't an improvement. Certainly my intent was for it to |
6 |
> make all Foundation members Gentoo staff. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> I think that all Foundation members should be staff, and all staff |
9 |
> should be Foundation members. If somebody isn't qualified to be in |
10 |
> one, they shouldn't be in the other. If somebody doesn't want to be |
11 |
> in one, they shouldn't be in the other. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> I'm not suggesting that there should be some kind of onerous |
14 |
> requirement to be staff. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> I think one of the biggest problems that you need to solve if you want |
17 |
> to try to reform the meta-structure is that we have multiple |
18 |
> constituencies right now. My goal would be to fix that. If somebody |
19 |
> isn't active enough to be considered staff, then they shouldn't be |
20 |
> voting on the governance of the distro. If they're going to be voting |
21 |
> on governance, then they should be well-versed in how things work. |
22 |
> |
23 |
|
24 |
It was my intention that all foundation members be staff as well, I'll |
25 |
amend it and re-reply as a new base sub-thread. |
26 |
|
27 |
-- |
28 |
-- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire) |