| 1 |
On 2010.04.18 12:58, Richard Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 04/17/2010 07:50 PM, Denis Dupeyron wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Do we want to make changes to the role of the council? |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Note - I mention Trustees a few times - this policy would of course |
| 7 |
> not govern the trustees. I mention them only to draw contrasts and |
| 8 |
> better define the role of the council, which this does define. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I'm not sure this is actually a change, but I think that many would |
| 11 |
> consider this a change, so perhaps it should be made explicit: |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> There is one Gentoo. The Council heads it up. There is one Gentoo |
| 14 |
> Foundation. The trustees head it up. Full stop. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
[snip lots of good stuff] |
| 17 |
> Rich |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Rich, |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Thats an interesting concept that I only partly agree with. There is |
| 23 |
one Gentoo. True. The Council heads it up *techncially*. That's |
| 24 |
fairly important. If the council makes a bad decision on behalf of |
| 25 |
Gentoo, its the Foundation that gets sued and ultimately, the trustees |
| 26 |
who go to jail as they have legal responsibility for Gentoo. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Its a little be more subtle than that as the groups represented by the |
| 29 |
two leadership bodies are not the same but the basic idea is unchanged. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
So far, there has been no friction between the two bodies and they |
| 32 |
operate well in their apparently isolated areas. As a trustee, I have a |
| 33 |
vested interest in making this arrangement work. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
[Note] Its a good idea for anyone making decisions on behalf of Gentoo |
| 36 |
to be a Gentoo Foundation member. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
Regards, |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Roy Bamford |
| 42 |
(Neddyseagoon) a member of |
| 43 |
gentoo-ops |
| 44 |
forum-mods |
| 45 |
trustees |
Archives