From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1HVY0q-0004YB-Rt for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 25 Mar 2007 19:04:21 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l2PJ3IgG020889; Sun, 25 Mar 2007 19:03:18 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l2PJ17mc018283 for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2007 19:01:07 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BEAC64DD5 for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2007 19:01:07 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: 0.129 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.129 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-1.124, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=1.253] 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 qr4d4EEfHD56 for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2007 19:01:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1DDC64BA6 for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2007 19:00:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HVXx7-0006C1-Us for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Sun, 25 Mar 2007 21:00:29 +0200 Received: from 82.152.245.4 ([82.152.245.4]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2007 21:00:29 +0200 Received: from slong by 82.152.245.4 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2007 21:00:29 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Steve Long Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Proposed addition to the Social Contract Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 19:57:00 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1174788467.4883.29.camel@bruichladdich> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.152.245.4 User-Agent: KNode/0.10.4 Sender: news X-Archives-Salt: 25750323-06f8-424e-b480-479bae60b7a7 X-Archives-Hash: 0e9b6c711ace41b64cbe039c5491235b Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: > It looks like our social contract doesn't prohibit Gentoo from being > dependent upon a single sponsor or corporation. In the interests of > keeping Gentoo run by the developers rather than any outside party, how > about the following addition to the Social Contract? > > We will be run by the Development Community > Gentoo will be run by the development community. We will never allow > ourselves to be reliant upon a single sponsor or corporation. > Er personally I think it's a nice mission statement, but it doesn't have much meaning, and consequently little place in a `Social Contract'. After all, Gentoo _is_ run by the devs, and I don't actually see how that could change. Any corporation would firstly be mad to try and take it over since the devs wouldn't have it. They don't even accept the authority of people they voted for ;) Additionally, the consequent negative publicity would be a PR nightmare; imagine the blog entries and the malevolence they'd unleash! As for getting into a situation of over-reliance, that's a good stance to take, as an objective- not a statement of fact. Again, I don't think the Council would let it get to that. Maybe it would be useful as one of your objectives tho'. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list