| 1 |
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 10:49 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Then perhaps we should wait until they figure out how to take care of |
| 5 |
> that annoying stuff like real business matters before we give them |
| 6 |
> more important matters to do, like care for the Social Contract? |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Rich, there is so many things wrong with what you just said, I don't know |
| 10 |
where to begin. First, I have noticed that you have a tendency of making |
| 11 |
insulting comments about the Trustees as well as Foundation members who |
| 12 |
have legitimate concerns. Your comment above is insulting to the Trustees. |
| 13 |
It is not helpful to be dismissive or insulting. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Secondly, this idea that you have to "give them" the authority to do what |
| 16 |
they are chartered to do in the first place is totally wrong. It is |
| 17 |
actually the other way around. The trustees, as a whole, have complete |
| 18 |
authority over the project, and have the ability and legal authority to |
| 19 |
remove Council members that they may feel are a threat to the long-term |
| 20 |
stability of the project, similar to how a Board of Directors can axe a |
| 21 |
problematic CEO. So in regards to running the project, GLEPs, etc., the |
| 22 |
trustees have the ability to intervene when needed to keep the project on |
| 23 |
track. However, they do not "run" the project on a day-to-day basis, or |
| 24 |
even engage in most strategic decisions, unless it involves a significant |
| 25 |
departure from our existing focus (for example, if Gentoo were to decide to |
| 26 |
build a search engine, I could see the Trustees being involved in that |
| 27 |
decision.) |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-Daniel |
Archives