| 1 |
On 2021-05-03 17:04, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: |
| 2 |
> Please don't go the "we are not responsible for anything" route, |
| 3 |
> that's the fastest way to obstruct any productivity. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
Well, I don't know what we will discuss and what will be the outcome. |
| 6 |
But imagine we would all agree and send a request to foundation to stop |
| 7 |
spending AWS credits for X immediately. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Foundation has to reject this request by law because such a request must |
| 10 |
come from a natural person. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
So maybe you will re-send this request as dilfridge (like you are listed |
| 13 |
as foundation member). ulm, williamh, mattst88 will support that. |
| 14 |
gyakovlev, slyfox and me cannot because we aren't foundation members. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
But this will be a normal request. You cannot use any kind of "council |
| 17 |
power" even if all council members, who are representing the Gentoo |
| 18 |
developer community, voted for this during meeting. I.e. this has to |
| 19 |
follow foundation procedural which isn't aware of a construct like |
| 20 |
"council". It has no meaning for foundation according to their charter. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
My point is: I don't understand why you try to bring this to council |
| 23 |
where we can do absolute nothing about it when you as foundation member |
| 24 |
could (and should) bring this up in foundation where you can change it. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Regards, |
| 29 |
Thomas Deutschmann / Gentoo Linux Developer |
| 30 |
fpr: C4DD 695F A713 8F24 2AA1 5638 5849 7EE5 1D5D 74A5 |
Archives