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 1KaY7M-000613-2u for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 02 Sep 2008 15:48:32 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CAED5E06B1; Tue, 2 Sep 2008 15:48:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3A32E06B1; Tue, 2 Sep 2008 15:48:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A542F67299; Tue, 2 Sep 2008 15:48:29 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -0.122 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.122 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.123, BAYES_50=0.001] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id neyQ4DeNO5zU; Tue, 2 Sep 2008 15:48:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smarthost02.mail.zen.net.uk (smarthost02.mail.zen.net.uk [212.23.3.141]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C71F664D8C; Tue, 2 Sep 2008 15:48:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [62.3.120.141] (helo=spike) by smarthost02.mail.zen.net.uk with esmtpsa (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1KaY77-00009M-TR; Tue, 02 Sep 2008 15:48:18 +0000 Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 16:48:07 +0100 From: Roy Bamford Subject: Re: [gentoo-nfp] RE: [gentoo-council] Foundation by laws: new Article V To: "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" , gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org, gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <48BD567C.6020308@gentoo.org> (from jmbsvicetto@gentoo.org on Tue Sep 2 16:06:36 2008) X-Mailer: Balsa 2.3.25 Message-Id: <1220370495.3089.5@spike> 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=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Originating-Smarthost02-IP: [62.3.120.141] X-Archives-Salt: a7344b5d-880e-42c4-bf27-7294400cb193 X-Archives-Hash: b3a32d3552cb173dd77a8fdc30d5cb2a -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 2008.09.02 16:06, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: > My personal opinion is that making this a rule is wrong and can prove > to be counter-productive. I understand the reasons you and others=20 > have raised, but in my view this should be left to the voters - it is=20 > (or > should be) their choice in the end. >=20 > -- > Regards, >=20 > Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org > Gentoo- forums / Userrel / SPARC / KDE >=20 Jorge, The three remaining trustees were also nominated to stand for election=20 for the council. Had they all accepted and been elected to the council,=20 today we would be in the position of having trustees being a subset of=20 council. That would have totally destroyed the council/foundation split=20 that was one of the reasons the two bodies were created. We need rules to stop that situation from occuring. If we are to remove the council/foundation split and adopt a more=20 normal corporate structure, lets do it deliberately with the changes to=20 both council and foundation to make a single workable body capable of=20 dealing with all aspects of Gentoo and without holding back development=20 rather than find we have done it accidently by electing the same people=20 to both bodies. The opinions expressed here are my own, not the opinions of the Gentoo=20 Foundation Inc. - --=20 Regards, Roy Bamford (NeddySeagoon) a member of gentoo-ops forum-mods treecleaners trustees -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAki9YD8ACgkQTE4/y7nJvas8iwCeK9GYkJeQIxMYlRMlrHs885U/ IcIAoLSOMUlcY1qFLWI8GxyQNFv0iR3s =3DWwG9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----