From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B025139694 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2017 14:47:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 735581FC159; Mon, 31 Jul 2017 14:47:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3322A1FC0FF for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2017 14:47:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from thinkpad.fritz.box (cable-static-236-115.teleport.ch [213.188.236.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: soap) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0188434171E for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2017 14:47:50 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1501512467.7122.4.camel@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts? From: David Seifert To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 16:47:47 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <20170724222223.6d359e47@sf> <20170731002830.GA14487@dt001651.civica.com.au> <2462869.Cdz0UZGzAf@porto> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.22.6 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 394dada2-0ee7-49fa-911c-ccdd5d356e97 X-Archives-Hash: 0229a36b12588ebefebb8915727bca1c On Mon, 2017-07-31 at 10:43 -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 14:59:25 +0200 > "Andreas K. Huettel" wrote: > > > Am Montag, 31. Juli 2017, 04:44:58 CEST schrieb William L. Thomson > > Jr.: > > > > > > How about no foundation. Not even a legal entity. No > > > certifications > > > from vendors, nor for employees. No one to hire for official > > > support. There are so many things far beyond anything having to > > > do > > > with a stable tree or not.   > > > > I was *this* close to nominaing you for Trustee, until I realized > > you're not even a foundation member... > > Wait what? You blocked me from returning as a developer. Based on my > human relation skills, or in your opinion lack there of.... > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135927#c43 > > How would you think I be fit for foundation Trustee? Which is a > liason > type role, at least with outside entities. That makes  little to no > sense. A developer need technical skills more than personal. A > Trustee > needs personal and not so much technical.... Great logic! > > It seems that foundation membership been messed up pretty bad. This > seems to be the list of members. Which seems to only be developers. > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Member_List > > Per the by laws, one is only removed from membership via voluntary > request, and/or majority vote of the trustees to remove a member. > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Bylaws#Section_4.4._Continuat > ion_of_Membership > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Bylaws#Section_4.8._Voluntary > _Withdrawal_from_Membership > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Bylaws#Section_4.9._Terminati > on_from_Membership > > I may have requested removal, I seem to recall such. Though I am not > sure others have. Seems the foundation is missing many members. > Unless > the trustees voted to remove many others. > > Also developers are not automatically added per bylaws. They must > apply for such. > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Bylaws#Section_4.3._Admission > _of_Members > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sarcasm