| 1 |
On 10/13/2016 10:36 PM, Matthew Thode wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 10/13/2016 03:24 PM, Matthias Maier wrote: |
| 3 |
>>> >> The current problem (that this attempts to solve) is that the technical |
| 4 |
>>> >> leadership is doing things it should not be responsible for (primarily |
| 5 |
>>> >> comrel) but also pr and possibly infra. |
| 6 |
>> > |
| 7 |
>> > And what exactly would make the Foundation more appropriate to rule over |
| 8 |
>> > interpersonal matters of a (disconnected) body of developers? |
| 9 |
>> > |
| 10 |
> Council is for technical decisions, that they rule over 'HR' decisions |
| 11 |
> is an overstep. 'HR' is generally close to legal, and thus the foundation. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
The comparison to HR is at best incomplete. There is no employment |
| 15 |
contract involved, there are no payments for services involved[A], as |
| 16 |
such, can you provide any legal basis for the claim? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Ultimately the question of council with regards to comreal appeals comes |
| 19 |
down to whether an individual should have commit access to Gentoo |
| 20 |
resources. Are you saying that the security and quality of Gentoo code |
| 21 |
does not concern technical questions? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Endnotes: |
| 24 |
[A] if it were, it might or might not be opposed to the no benefit for |
| 25 |
non-profit organization |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Kristian Fiskerstrand |
| 29 |
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net |
| 30 |
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3 |
Archives