| 1 |
On 2021-05-03 15:55, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: |
| 2 |
>> Is this really a topic for council? |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> Isn't foundation an independent body and if someone requests funding |
| 5 |
>> from foundation and will get it approved... |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Given that I still see it as my agenda to eventually |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> * get rid of the foundation |
| 10 |
> * move our assets to an umbrella |
| 11 |
> * and have only one elected body (the council) deciding, |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> mostly to have clear lines of responsibility and less potential for |
| 14 |
> infighting, |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> yes, definitely. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> (Also, some of the current foundation officers got elected with more |
| 19 |
> or less the same plan. :) |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
But all of this concerns a potential future -- not today. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
And before any of this can happen, foundation must come up with the |
| 24 |
first move and declare such a plan in general (I think they were working |
| 25 |
on this and started to evaluate possibilities but after some umbrella |
| 26 |
organizations rejected their requests the process became stale). |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
My point is, discussions should happen in public, on mailing list. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
If there is something for council meeting, i.e. a possible motion, this |
| 31 |
must be discussed on mailing list first and shouldn't get created during |
| 32 |
a meeting. So having just a discussion during meeting without a clear |
| 33 |
goal/defined end, is likely a waste of time as agenda item. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
If you just want to talk about this for some reason and don't plan to |
| 36 |
bring forward a motion or something, please move this to open floor |
| 37 |
which will allow non-council member to join and others to leave because |
| 38 |
it isn't part of the mandatory meeting anymore. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
Regards, |
| 43 |
Thomas Deutschmann / Gentoo Linux Developer |
| 44 |
fpr: C4DD 695F A713 8F24 2AA1 5638 5849 7EE5 1D5D 74A5 |
Archives