| 1 |
Steve Long wrote: |
| 2 |
> Well technically the Foundation used to be legal title-holder to all |
| 3 |
Gentoo |
| 4 |
> assets. He's talking about the Trustees exerting control over the |
| 5 |
> developers, which is something it was explicitly set up not to do; the |
| 6 |
> Council are the ultimate authority for all developers. So in a sense he's |
| 7 |
> trying to take control over the whole thing (even though it would be |
| 8 |
a new |
| 9 |
> legally disjoint entity) in one swoop. Some people will applaud that, |
| 10 |
> others not. *shrug* |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Well correct me if I am wrong but if the foundation is no more then |
| 13 |
wouldn't/hasn't everything revert(ed) back to him anyway? |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> The SFC thing is far more like the old Foundation tbh. Only they have |
| 16 |
> professional admins, accountants and lawyers. ;) |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
>> At the very least I would only consider his offer when I had some sort |
| 19 |
>> of information on the offer. Negotiations are whats needed, not an |
| 20 |
>> instant accept/decline |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Yeah, only he explicitly rules out any negotiation and set a very tight |
| 23 |
> deadline to accept or refuse. I pleaded with him to change only the terms |
| 24 |
> (no discussion/deadline and all his appointees) believe it or not. meh. |
| 25 |
> "Railroading" is the only term that seems apt to me. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
That is just a negotiation manoeuvre, forcing Gentoo to act |
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
gentoo-project@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives