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 964AF1395E2 for ; Mon, 7 Nov 2016 12:26:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DC72CE084D; Mon, 7 Nov 2016 12:26:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qt0-f180.google.com (mail-qt0-f180.google.com [209.85.216.180]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C54CFE084D for ; Mon, 7 Nov 2016 12:26:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qt0-f180.google.com with SMTP id w33so85626315qtc.3 for ; Mon, 07 Nov 2016 04:26:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to; bh=v7WAC+kdc/vZcOvxAATMaEj8N8CSJRcmoJgiU9DBwrM=; b=zl5EISpIvpVGYcfvXjyGEyDmJXcflJUEItDNDe7ZRIYLSuITiIG6yFnyIhhy9h7ZG5 jbj4mIdETRfvHGP9TbI7hgDRHhu3jym0SerRLC0bT6PkI99FW2mb+eyWWF30Hjel5ibL kswbhPjqUJFg16eufb7GbO3jlo886UhgxM3acGcUcTNKhd5fkz4LbTLzaxcEcdszJO8a z2FO/SPE84muVqZAqSr52BnK4Kx6VRE3aZjVPTMoBSmS6mtmZrLkDmSk0EGH4c3J78JY cYoeQ+lgeJGUcTJnuYXCAYHZgmSPvcECCcQs2JYrtxaceJc3mWQmA55sQbWm5BL2U5ou vjNQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to; bh=v7WAC+kdc/vZcOvxAATMaEj8N8CSJRcmoJgiU9DBwrM=; b=RPcGLi4uBm/GRlHWimx+epniz5lMkFrJxwbtiQ9jKCkZuxmRfuzLK5MyZo0dIBrYFK rGur2B5AoJGQ9iUV76m5GFuAvZls7Ah1K8Hs4HegwGWOdM+KN5MMEmen7m97Yi2Vdmo4 Z6M/pOBZvB4V+6C7ikcrfqOKOR7chNmdlnvLa/crvhTPrL9M7NSeMypGbkAE/hSgfaXd JRjEEvexzOrD6/XP1M05a3+PZtHdfgcYpAi5CtQ9FUhGz3KSCI4igED34ucBwkHK21Qq HfhTSBZ42kThmwpOJEVdh0Fuf1KYsWGZxQhIurPOZSZ5Txyq+pDSjSTzzdqHmzACs/bX 8xkg== X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngveGRADkbOFgqvGjH0xKm08viY1spD+JYPC68LwUAgkPRNiVTpbvYTBu71qwEWF4cyWafQVAOlHXBd4eTw== X-Received: by 10.200.49.247 with SMTP id i52mr6503082qte.108.1478521585675; Mon, 07 Nov 2016 04:26:25 -0800 (PST) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.140.89.83 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Nov 2016 04:26:24 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <64635918-f70a-c405-02a6-932ac007c961@gentoo.org> <8c80f9fb-ecfa-9a5e-9b85-64207e68aa37@gentoo.org> From: Rich Freeman Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 07:26:24 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 5xQSYsaTVIF1o5ojpbUXRjWZkro Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-nfp] Next meeting; a motion to have 1 type of Gentoo member. To: gentoo-nfp Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: c2fc5f49-dc26-4828-b89e-9e156fe3a6b5 X-Archives-Hash: 5214578cb9396d2e197eebae74731b6d On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 6:54 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 11/07/2016 12:50 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> I think that is important to keep the group of people voting for >> Council/Trustees the same as much as possible. Otherwise you're going >> to get even more reluctance for the two bodies to work together. > > Right, which would be done by requiring all foundation members to be > developers. Developers, contributors, users. Whatever you want to call it. As long as they go through the current non-committer recruitment process I don't think the name matters a great deal as long as we're consistent. They should still be subject to all the same community standards (staff quiz, CoC, Comrel, etc). > The drawback of that is that it removes possibility of things like > "sponsor"-level membership (which could be a non-voting membership class > if bylaws are changed to accomodate it) but allow for corporate > sponsorships in a structured manner if that is necessary on a > subscription basis. So far it seems like there hasn't been much need for > this, though. Well, such things don't exist today, but if there were ever a need it could still be bolted on. As long as this is non-voting I don't think it really creates any issues on this particular issue. No doubt there are going to be lots of opinions on what it means to be a sponsor and so on, but I think that's a different debate. I think the goal is to align the voting pools for Council/Trustees and have just one set of community standards for everybody, and I think that makes sense. -- Rich