This email did not make it to gentoo-nfp, although it made it to trustees@
on Apr 8. Including for comment. Thanks.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Daniel Robbins <drobbins@funtoo.org>
Date: Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 3:34 PM
Subject: agenda items for April 8th meeting
To: gentoo-nfp <gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org>


Hi All,

For the upcoming trustees meeting, I would like the trustees to officially
consider (as an agenda item) the proposal I made about a week ago, which
consists of two parts, each of which can be voted on and considered
independently:

First, that the trustees enforce CoC for Council. Trustees would keep the
Council accountable to consistently uphold the CoC, and ensure that the
Council are accountable to the CoC themselves. The Council has a position
of authority on the project and double-standards in CoC enforcement is
undesirable and can create two classes of developers.

The second agenda item would be establishing a position of User
Representative, ideally two people who would sit on the Council and whose
responsibility would be to represent non-Gentoo-developer Foundation
members in Council decisions. This would be a trustee-appointed position.
It can be paid (small consultants fee) or unpaid. I have no problems with
Gentoo developers serving in this capacity. The criteria for appointment
would be that the persons should have a passion for representing
non-Gentoo-developer perspectives for the benefit of the larger Gentoo
community and the project overall.

Since I have had this specific proposal posted and available for
consideration for approximately a week on the funtoo-project ML, I ask that
these agenda items be considered in advance of any other agenda items
submitted to the trustees, particularly those to formally acknowledge the
legitimacy of the Council, which in effect are rubber-stamps of the
Council's behavior (past, present and future) and are (in my opinion)
something that would violate the bond trust between Foundation members and
trustees by endorsing the questionable behavior of a specific sub-group of
Gentoo developers that currently remains unaccountable to any
non-developers.

Once the above two (or similar) agenda items have been considered and
(hopefully) there is some accountability of Council in regards to CoC, I
have no problems with trustees endorsing Council as the official 'leaders'
of Gentoo day-to-day development efforts. But I consider it dangerous and
inappropriate for the Foundation to provide such endorsement without these
two important means of accountability (CoC enforcement for Council as well
as User Representatives) being in place first.

Best,

Daniel