| 1 |
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> This is why I oppose mooshing the roles together. |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> An ebuild maintaining nerd/codemonkey type may have little interest in |
| 5 |
> foundation politics, and vice versa. We should not force them to shoulder |
| 6 |
> roles they don't want. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> As long as they're willing to play nice with the community, they should be |
| 9 |
> allowed to offer their support in any way they see fit. I don't think |
| 10 |
> putting vote quotas on anyone is going to help. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
It is a valid argument, but it does then lead to the situation where |
| 14 |
we have diverging foundation and dev membership, which means that if |
| 15 |
you post the same question to both groups, you could get different |
| 16 |
answers, and thus conflict. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
However, this could be mitigated a great deal if we still purged |
| 19 |
foundation members who are no longer active staff/devs, while keeping |
| 20 |
foundation membership optional for those who are, and if somebody |
| 21 |
loses foundation membership due to not voting they could ask to be |
| 22 |
allowed back in. Then while somebody might not be voting for who the |
| 23 |
Trustees are, they can't really complain because they need only ask |
| 24 |
for the ability to vote for them, and crisis could be averted. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Rich |
Archives