| 1 |
This is why I oppose mooshing the roles together. |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
An ebuild maintaining nerd/codemonkey type may have little interest in |
| 4 |
foundation politics, and vice versa. We should not force them to shoulder |
| 5 |
roles they don't want. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
As long as they're willing to play nice with the community, they should be |
| 8 |
allowed to offer their support in any way they see fit. I don't think |
| 9 |
putting vote quotas on anyone is going to help. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 7:45 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote: |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> On 14/10/16 10:35 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 14 |
> > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> |
| 15 |
> wrote: |
| 16 |
> >> On 14/10/16 08:43 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 17 |
> >>> |
| 18 |
> >>> [...] two different pools of voters (Foundation members and |
| 19 |
> >>> "Developers" (which today includes anybody with an @g.o address even |
| 20 |
> >>> if they don't have commit access - the proposal splits that into Staff |
| 21 |
> >>> and Developers) |
| 22 |
> >> |
| 23 |
> >> |
| 24 |
> >> By definition #1, if you're a dev then you're staff; staff is a |
| 25 |
> >> superset of dev but there's no separation there based on the |
| 26 |
> >> definitions listed. There needs to be a classification for |
| 27 |
> >> non-staff-dev if a dev loses foundation membership due to the |
| 28 |
> >> staff<->foundation hard coupling and whatever rules there are that |
| 29 |
> >> revokes foundation membership and therefore staff status, but can |
| 30 |
> >> still remain a dev. |
| 31 |
> >> |
| 32 |
> >> OR, don't couple dev to staff so that devs have a different (sub)set |
| 33 |
> >> of rules regarding foundation membership revocation. |
| 34 |
> > |
| 35 |
> > My intent is that anybody who ceases to be a Foundation member also |
| 36 |
> > loses membership in staff, dev, and loses commit access. |
| 37 |
> > |
| 38 |
> > Again, the point is to keep Foundation membership strictly in-line |
| 39 |
> > with what are currently today developers. This means that the same |
| 40 |
> > people who vote for Council also vote for the Trustees. (Today staff |
| 41 |
> > are also considered developers and do vote for the Council.) |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
> Excellent. *THIS* makes things very clear. |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
> Now, I forsee there being some push-back from a dev losing their |
| 47 |
> gentoo-repo commit rights if they abstain from voting in two |
| 48 |
> (consecutive?) Foundation elections....but that's a separate issue |
| 49 |
> that can be addressed on its own. |
| 50 |
> |
| 51 |
> |
| 52 |
> |
| 53 |
> |
| 54 |
> |
Archives