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 091971382C5 for ; Sat, 21 Apr 2018 23:17:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 226E9E07F6; Sat, 21 Apr 2018 23:17:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-it0-x234.google.com (mail-it0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::234]) (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 DA257E07F6 for ; Sat, 21 Apr 2018 23:17:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-it0-x234.google.com with SMTP id 85-v6so6484678iti.4 for ; Sat, 21 Apr 2018 16:17:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=funtoo-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=pv3/oNl4zSDWnYv1ZpipQmuoWZeErp8s73gdQI1fQLs=; b=cq7cDMch3U9Uv2849wu3Xf12ryZ+504cZP4IrsBjfjRzwsZ3yANlvAyEk37CGxIR4S UYzsUBkin+h98zvnEUQz3ZBrpAKwymWNd7qbRRHXzld+KGg25Yxduc7qAq9Is4DRahtm PBxYwiVkEejHWHHdjgT+PCPr1H80emR7krgR7Wd9mPx2MpPwTG/vBQJ3TUoGN3KCBQuq 210ldgVL7dboc8Ygw8S5r53ZLZ+12FWX+5v7++Gtxfh2yIHCP1zrSIKyAiQv6e5TKgeQ tGlFLxwWhZdUUrIepIWGoWFzoOVaq13Gv1UlBUEgKldtCuBFYWZ1WPVWqyGQBaZPTZEZ vHFQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=pv3/oNl4zSDWnYv1ZpipQmuoWZeErp8s73gdQI1fQLs=; b=OFEu60ct2P58TNIKdtsM80FwJej1X602tiaXPq5GaAa7AiNbba87T7Y+eu4VAlLCAF 2JHEbtcITYFZ37aUo08tc0iNr3+lN6WJSY1zvK7MBMO2ppcjTWLs8H+NNsoUdAEiUPjl l1Z52rz/GfpXyu20qeVVdz1p9Yfn6aChXcLYdHEw/1dNpTnRkkndzmfL4JY1srp2KcGF fyCiiEWM6M9reoFI3/T6IOKA6R0TaZFrwlX6TlG97b40CI9j7aIoBvcQ5grZU6zejqjh kzZhIiocbdibRvhX9TsuCwaMxJ9EFahDWyEwk8kwZvy9nOKeWxL8M2npzJ1zO1AWnhpf x+qA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tDbUshVYBsJ5BRxtFgSItV4w9j9o+vGtf8aQyxQQmyK6rJId3BL IyQlmx4Re35BrrwAcjd7bXzO4Bp5Dgm5UdnIh+r0tqGQ X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx4+z9syg8fdDq9LS7Euu6Fuv0NYlr/k3LhdGUTkRuzn55Xckyb1x8Paaw7Qe5THkDPe3Auw8SjYqXHK/8SbyUqw= X-Received: by 2002:a24:7cd4:: with SMTP id a203-v6mr8794234itd.152.1524352652256; Sat, 21 Apr 2018 16:17:32 -0700 (PDT) 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 Received: by 2002:a4f:7753:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Sat, 21 Apr 2018 16:17:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Daniel Robbins Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2018 17:17:31 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: [gentoo-nfp] Fwd: agenda items for April 8th meeting To: gentoo-nfp Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000059bc39056a64028b" X-Archives-Salt: 2f5cc6e4-52b3-4e32-ad2a-e9b907cfcdc4 X-Archives-Hash: 263923110e13ff694a667a93ea8b0a72 --00000000000059bc39056a64028b Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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 Date: Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 3:34 PM Subject: agenda items for April 8th meeting To: gentoo-nfp 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 --00000000000059bc39056a64028b Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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
T= o: gentoo-nfp <gentoo-nfp= @lists.gentoo.org>


Hi All,

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

First, that the trustees enforce CoC f= or Council. Trustees would keep the Council accountable to consistently uph= old the CoC, and ensure that the Council are accountable to the CoC themsel= ves. The Council has a position of authority on the project and double-stan= dards in CoC enforcement is undesirable and can create two classes of devel= opers.

The second agenda item would be establishin= g a position of User Representative, ideally two people who would sit on th= e Council and whose responsibility would be to represent non-Gentoo-develop= er Foundation members in Council decisions. This would be a trustee-appoint= ed position. It can be paid (small consultants fee) or unpaid. I have no pr= oblems with Gentoo developers serving in this capacity. The criteria for ap= pointment would be that the persons should have a passion for representing = non-Gentoo-developer perspectives for the benefit of the larger Gentoo comm= unity and the project overall.

Since I have had th= is specific proposal posted and available for consideration for approximate= ly a week on the funtoo-project ML, I ask that these agenda items be consid= ered in advance of any other agenda items submitted to the trustees, partic= ularly those to formally acknowledge the legitimacy of the Council, which i= n effect are rubber-stamps of the Council's behavior (past, present and= future) and are (in my opinion) something that would violate the bond trus= t between Foundation members and trustees by endorsing the questionable beh= avior of a specific sub-group of Gentoo developers that currently remains u= naccountable to any non-developers.

Once the above= two (or similar) agenda items have been considered and (hopefully) there i= s 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 Repres= entatives) being in place first.

Best,
<= br>
Daniel

--00000000000059bc39056a64028b--