public inbox for gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "William L. Thomson Jr." <wltjr@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-nfp <gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org>
Cc: gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-nfp] Foundation by laws: new Article V
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 10:38:31 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1220279911.20605.8.camel@wlt.obsidian-studios.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <48BBE629.6050009@gentoo.org>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2377 bytes --]

On Mon, 2008-09-01 at 08:55 -0400, Richard Freeman wrote:
>
> I figured I'd raise an issue that is probably worth thinking about which 
> doesn't appear to have come up.  In the past the largest point of 
> failure for the trustees has been simply not having enough of them.

That is due to lack of interest. There was nothing stopping people from
running for both in the past. Yet still not enough were even interested
in 07.

> In my thinking, if the only thing the trustees did was attend a 5 minute 
> monthly meeting, cut the odd check to somebody helping out the 
> organization, and renew the annual paperwork that would be a success.

There is more to it than that. If it was a minimal time thing, the
foundation would be successful. There is much work to be done, and it's
damn near part time or full time. Do not think it's anything less.
People assuming such explain why not even a fraction of the requirements
for running the foundation each year. Were not met since 05.

> My personal opinion is that the trustees would do best to focus on 
> making the foundation minimally functional (ie all essential legal 
> paperwork in place - drop anything controversial and focus on bylaws 
> that all can agree to).

Well technically the trustees themselves just have to agree on bylaws.
So far there has only be maybe one or two speaking out against them.
That's hardly enough to change the bylaws. Or assume that the majority
disagrees. But they trustees do not need to seek approval for their
actions. Which they are doing in what they feel is in the best interest
of Gentoo.

>   Then it should really look to try to join an 
> unbrella organization that will handle the routine issues.  That will 
> actually free up trustees to provide more high-level guidance to the 
> organization without getting tied up in administration.

There HUGE issues with joining an umbrella. I am really getting tired of
mentioning the reasoning. When people ignore them and just spit out the
same comments over and over.

If we go with an umbrella organization we have a single contact to them.
That is not acceptable. We cannot have one responsible for all
communication, finances, legal issues, etc. That one would likely become
a liaison between Gentoo trustees and the umbrella. 

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.
Gentoo Linux Developer

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2008-09-01 14:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-08-31 20:24 [gentoo-nfp] Foundation by laws: new Article V Chrissy Fullam
2008-08-31 21:42 ` [gentoo-nfp] RE: [gentoo-council] " Chrissy Fullam
2008-08-31 23:08   ` William L. Thomson Jr.
2008-08-31 23:51   ` [gentoo-nfp] " Alec Warner
     [not found]   ` <20080831230836.B0A43207511@starwind.baent.net>
2008-09-01  4:08     ` [gentoo-nfp] " Blackace
2008-09-01  4:51       ` William L. Thomson Jr.
2008-09-02  4:44         ` Chrissy Fullam
2008-09-02 13:02           ` William L. Thomson Jr.
2008-09-02 15:06             ` Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
2008-09-02 15:20               ` William L. Thomson Jr.
2008-09-02 15:25               ` Ned Ludd
2008-09-02 15:35                 ` William L. Thomson Jr.
2008-09-02 16:49                   ` Ned Ludd
2008-09-02 16:59                     ` William L. Thomson Jr.
2008-09-02 15:48               ` Roy Bamford
2008-09-02 22:16                 ` Richard Freeman
2008-09-02 23:01                   ` Ferris McCormick
2008-09-03 16:50                   ` Roy Bamford
2008-08-31 22:46 ` [gentoo-nfp] " Alec Warner
2008-09-01 12:55   ` Richard Freeman
2008-09-01 14:38     ` William L. Thomson Jr. [this message]
2008-09-01 15:24     ` Roy Bamford
2008-08-31 22:50 ` William L. Thomson Jr.
2008-08-31 23:07   ` Chrissy Fullam
2008-08-31 23:15     ` William L. Thomson Jr.
2008-08-31 23:44     ` [gentoo-council] " Alec Warner
     [not found]     ` <20080831234433.0CDD6EBAA6@starwind.baent.net>
2008-09-01  4:02       ` Blackace

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1220279911.20605.8.camel@wlt.obsidian-studios.com \
    --to=wltjr@gentoo.org \
    --cc=gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org \
    --cc=gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox