| 1 |
On 14/10/16 03:40 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Friday, October 14, 2016 12:36:23 PM EDT Raymond Jennings wrote: |
| 3 |
>> You got it. |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> My main point is that there should be a way for foundation |
| 6 |
>> members/devs/whatever to prove a) they're interested enough to show good |
| 7 |
>> attendance at voting, but b) without having to get politically inclined if |
| 8 |
>> they can't be arsed to do anything but codemonkey type stuff or what have |
| 9 |
>> you. |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Yes, could go even further. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Developers/staff/etc automatically have an "Abstain" vote while they are |
| 15 |
> active in Gentoo. They can literally avoid the foundation entirely but still |
| 16 |
> be an active member. Not even required to "Abstain" as it is an auto vote. |
| 17 |
> Though if they choose to vote, they can always change the default. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> That would not apply to "supporters". Just a convenient thing for those within |
| 20 |
> Gentoo to not have to be bothered with Foundation voting, while retaining |
| 21 |
> active membership. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Good points, I do not think they had been brought up! |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Anything that makes Developers/staff/etc life better in Gentoo I am all for! |
| 26 |
> Less bureaucracy more automation! |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
This would likely provide the smallest overall impact of these changes |
| 30 |
while still accomplishing the goals. Of course it's still |
| 31 |
questionable as to whether or not this meets legal requirements for |
| 32 |
the elections (quorum, turnouts, etc) so it'll need to be worded |
| 33 |
carefully. |
Archives