| 1 |
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 11:55 AM, William L. Thomson Jr. <wlt-ml@××××××.com> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Friday, October 14, 2016 11:28:18 AM EDT Raymond Jennings wrote: |
| 5 |
> > A developer should always be able to say "no vote because I'm too busy |
| 6 |
> > coding and don't give a rat's ass about foundation politics" in a trustee |
| 7 |
> > election. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> True, but it really does not take long to vote. That is really the only |
| 10 |
> obligation, annually. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
That's what I mean, a developer's vote should always be able to be |
| 14 |
"abstain" if they wish. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> I can understand anyone objecting to membership, but the |
| 18 |
> burden is VERY little if any. Plus not really required to vote, just |
| 19 |
> required |
| 20 |
> if you want to remain a member. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> > I am wary of putting more burdens on a developer than they are prepared |
| 23 |
> > for, and I oppose requiring developers to be foundation members or vice |
| 24 |
> > versa or staff or vice versa. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> I agree. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Part of the idea is if the Foundation was more functional and played more |
| 29 |
> of a |
| 30 |
> role in Gentoo. Developers may have more interest as they may have benefit. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> Say your working on some hardware platform. The Foundation makes a deal |
| 33 |
> with |
| 34 |
> that vendor. Now the developer has access to hardware they may not |
| 35 |
> otherwise. |
| 36 |
> That may give the developer more interest and reason to participate in the |
| 37 |
> Foundation. If their involvement is conducive to development. |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> -- |
| 40 |
> William L. Thomson Jr. |
| 41 |
> |
Archives