From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KZw1j-0005QX-DQ for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 31 Aug 2008 23:08:11 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 01AADE01A8; Sun, 31 Aug 2008 23:08:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from QMTA05.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta05.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [76.96.30.48]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC7B1E01A8 for ; Sun, 31 Aug 2008 23:08:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from OMTA12.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.44]) by QMTA05.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 9AvT1a0070x6nqcA5B89zB; Sun, 31 Aug 2008 23:08:09 +0000 Received: from mail.twi-31o2.org ([24.130.214.143]) by OMTA12.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 9B881a00636CDJG8YB89mA; Sun, 31 Aug 2008 23:08:09 +0000 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=gyrikcv5ksIA:10 a=oUyEjFW8Tv8A:10 a=7mOBRU54AAAA:8 a=M0jjePd4OfFVSeI6XQQA:9 a=rIX-y1o9y6pIbDigjbcA:7 a=P4NZn9ibtN8nqcTXAL9mGAM9AGYA:4 a=6bqG61NMjcsA:10 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.twi-31o2.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15AB18B4003; Sun, 31 Aug 2008 23:08:08 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at twi-31o2.org Received: from mail.twi-31o2.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (gravity.twi-31o2.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2YdcdVzGbmJI; Sun, 31 Aug 2008 23:08:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from draco2 (orion.twi-31o2.org [192.168.0.11]) by mail.twi-31o2.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21BF88B4002; Sun, 31 Aug 2008 23:08:07 +0000 (UTC) From: "Chrissy Fullam" To: "'gentoo-nfp'" Cc: References: <02a001c90ba7$8cc981f0$a65c85d0$@org> <1220223052.12958.17.camel@wlt.obsidian-studios.com> In-Reply-To: <1220223052.12958.17.camel@wlt.obsidian-studios.com> Subject: [gentoo-council] RE: [gentoo-nfp] Foundation by laws: new Article V Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 16:07:57 -0700 Message-ID: <031801c90bbe$6de97d00$49bc7700$@org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AckLvAwCkGgUngQQR0mLVmtnKoUeJAAARrmg Content-Language: en-us X-Archives-Salt: f2fee42d-7fbd-4c31-a183-d3d1bd5b543b X-Archives-Hash: cfbc36c22d483e71a8937cc90f196ce7 Combining emails from antarus and wltjr as in some ways they seem to = share the same view, focus on the team that needs it and don=E2=80=99t = split focus, but I'll hit antarus' other points first. > c) Limitations of Power. This bylaw limits the damage done by one > person. It is SOXish; it takes two to tango; two people to be > malicious in some use cases. Iirc, no one person can take action without some kind of peer vote? > d) Past performance does not indicate future returns. Just because we > have not had troubles in the past with this does not mean we will not > have trouble with it in the future. So instead of looking at Gentoo's past performance we'll look at the = 'what ifs' that have never happened and we've no reason to think they'll = ever happen? I feel like I am putting more trust in our = developers/community than others are. > Your use case is invalid in the general case as funding requests of > any kind require majority approval by the board of trustees per: > http://www.gentoo.org/foundation/en/requesting-funds.xml This actually furthers my case. "Any Foundation money spent needs to be = approved by a majority vote from the Board of Trustees." So one person = cannot do it alone so where is the conflict? The Foundation/Trustees = have been around for I believe four years, in that time only once has a = person held over lapping roles. Why do we think suddenly every person on = Trustee may overlap? It seems so very unlikely. And even if they did, = that means that we voted for them to fill the role, so do we now not = even trust ourselves to cast the right vote? > > What is the reasoning that a person cannot serve on the technical > > team and the legal team? >=20 > If something happens to said person. The loss is greater. If the drop = the > ball, the loss is greater. >=20 > There is no reason anyone should have such broad focus. They pick an = area > focus on it and work on it. That people take on/eat to much, then fail = to > chew it is not ok. Thus this is designed to prevent that from = occurring. >=20 > Just like Jacob should have had backup. There should be more = recruiters, > more people on QA, etc. Until ever little detail of every job is being > done to perfection. There is no need to stack titles, or widen focus. = We > need more narrow focus and doing a better job all around. So do we also restrict people from being on more than one team? What if = one team is deemed to be 'not doing well', should they resign from other = teams to focus on that one team, or resign from that team so it = doesn=E2=80=99t drag down their efforts on other teams? Kind regards, Christina Fullam Gentoo Developer Relations Lead | Gentoo Public Relations=20