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