| 1 |
On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 6:24 PM, Daniel Robbins <drobbins@××××××.org> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 4:22 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> You didn't propose soliciting feedback from users. You proposed |
| 6 |
>> giving non-contributing users the power to vote for members of the |
| 7 |
>> board of directors. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> No I did not. I did not propose any changes to the current policies for |
| 10 |
> membership in the Foundation. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
As I quoted in that email, you proposed: Encourage Gentoo users to |
| 13 |
become members of the Foundation through outreach and other |
| 14 |
initiatives. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
However, if you're fine with only having people with @g.o email |
| 17 |
addresses be Foundation members then there is no conflict on this |
| 18 |
particular point. Though, honestly, I don't get how your arguments |
| 19 |
about how people don't have a voice unless they have a vote fits into |
| 20 |
that. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I still object to the concept that everybody with an @g.o email |
| 23 |
address can vote for Council members, who apparently will |
| 24 |
automatically disregard users, and the same people can vote for |
| 25 |
Trustees, who apparently will automatically prioritize users. That |
| 26 |
seems a bit nonsensical, but if it were true it would be best to only |
| 27 |
have one governing body in the first place. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
The problem as I've pointed out elsewhere is that it is difficult to |
| 30 |
find people willing to assume the liability of being on the board in |
| 31 |
the current state of affairs, and it also can create challenges for |
| 32 |
some who have employers who limit such memberships. If it weren't for |
| 33 |
that issue I suspect we would have merged the bodies a while ago. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Ultimately I don't think it makes sense to have "user representatives" |
| 36 |
per se because it just leads into moralistic arguments about how one |
| 37 |
person's opinion counts more than an other's because according to |
| 38 |
their job title they officially represent "the users." I think it |
| 39 |
also implies that everybody else necessarily isn't interested in "the |
| 40 |
users" and has to be reined in. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Since none of us are paid to be here, I think it is safe to say that |
| 43 |
we're here because we ARE fairly heavy users and thus have an interest |
| 44 |
in a good user experience... |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
-- |
| 47 |
Rich |
Archives