1 |
On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 7:35 PM, Daniel Robbins <drobbins@××××××.org> wrote: |
2 |
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 5:17 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
>> |
4 |
>> |
5 |
>> So, this has been debated before, so I won't elaborate on it |
6 |
>> extensively, but I think it would be healthier to have these sorts of |
7 |
>> users become developers and vote for both the Council and the |
8 |
>> Trustees, than to have two different constituencies, because this only |
9 |
>> increases the opportunity for conflict between these bodies. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> I disagree strongly and think this is unwise because many may contribute but |
12 |
> not have time to go through the recruitment process or any interest in being |
13 |
> part of the project. Also, it is critical that there is representation from |
14 |
> outside of the project proper, as the Gentoo developer world can become |
15 |
> (many will argue that is already has become) a kind of mono-culture. |
16 |
|
17 |
Is the intent really for these non-developer Foundation members to be |
18 |
considered "outside of the project proper?" |
19 |
|
20 |
Are they stakeholder or aren't they? If they are, then we shouldn't |
21 |
treat them like second class citizens. If they aren't, then we |
22 |
shouldn't treat them as if they are. Certainly we can listen to them, |
23 |
but they shouldn't be part of formal governance. |
24 |
|
25 |
If the concern is that we become a "mono-culture" wouldn't it make |
26 |
more sense to bring in the voices that would make it not be a |
27 |
mono-culture? |
28 |
|
29 |
How is it better to instead keep those voices outside, but then give |
30 |
them the power to shame those who are actually actively contributing? |
31 |
|
32 |
-- |
33 |
Rich |