From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JJLTA-0000tf-MB for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 04:19:41 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4EA32E04FD; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 04:19:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com (fg-out-1718.google.com [72.14.220.156]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DED12E04FD for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 04:19:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id e21so1502135fga.14 for ; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 20:19:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.78.186.9 with SMTP id j9mr6537962huf.24.1201493977905; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 20:19:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.78.46.19 with HTTP; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 20:19:37 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 20:19:37 -0800 From: "Alec Warner" Sender: antarus@scriptkitty.com To: "Chris Gianelloni" Subject: Re: [gentoo-nfp] Trustee nominations Cc: gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <1201482430.6479.33.camel@inertia.twi-31o2.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20080124165131.GC10639@feynman.corp.halliburton.com> <1201303943.3218.31.camel@wlt.obsidian-studios.com> <1201462644.10297.3.camel@wlt.obsidian-studios.com> <1201482430.6479.33.camel@inertia.twi-31o2.org> X-Google-Sender-Auth: ade2ab827704e401 X-Archives-Salt: f1f81a05-be2e-420b-8c84-34ad7dbaac55 X-Archives-Hash: 44fb676b1672d9533865b313d98376bf On 1/27/08, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 14:37 -0500, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > > > Being as it's already January 27th: > > > > Yes, it wasn't expected days would go by with no response. So picking > > any new dates is kinda pointless till we know when they will be > > commented on. > > > > > Nominations start Jan 30th through Feb 12th, > > > Elections Feb 13th through 27th, new Trustees in march ;) > > > > No problem, unless we don't hear from Grant by the 30th. Then we reset > > again and push back/delay some more. > > Umm... how about "from now until the 12th" so we can just start and not > wait for Grant. > > No offense, but this whole "we have to wait for $foo to comment" is why > we're very much in this boat in the first place. Do any of you > seriously think that Grant is going to have some sort of objection to > the *dates* in which the election is held? > > Also, votes can be called by the Foundation membership without Trustee > approval. > Look, I just want to have my ducks in a row. The bylaws were not ratified by anyone as far as I can tell; so it could be construed that the foundation has only the trustees as members. Now Grant mentioned: "For practical purposes, we follow the proposed bylaws anyway, except where there is clear precedence contradicting them." Now to me that is not very clear; obviously we are nowhere close to following certain items of the bylaws (they mention for example, that we need a name and address for every member, which we don't have and so on....) There is no point in charging forward if the whole election ends up being illegal and has to be redone. That being said I'm happy to expedite things up to the limits of legal necessity. -Alec > I'm a Foundation member. I say we call this vote, starting nominations > now, ending the 12th, voting from the 13th through the 27th. There, now > it's official. Can we start nominating now? > > *grin* > > > Or any date, even if we don't agree. As most all want the date to come > > from the trustees. > > Quit looking to the trustees for everything. That is *also* how we got > into this mess. We're perfectly capable of doing quite a lot without > the trustees, so long as we are acting on their behalf or acting on the > behalf of the Foundation. As a Foundation member, one's vote counts > exactly the same as a trustee, except in cases where the board must make > a decision, which is generally only done as "proxy" to keep from having > to constantly poll the membership. As opposed to the Council, which is > purely a "representative government" the trustees more directly answer > to the membership. The members are the real voters. The trustees just > work on their behalf to save time. If the trustees do something the > membership doesn't like, the membership can vote and veto it and the > trustees cannot do a thing. They don't have any real special powers, > other than what they're granted. This is essentially the opposite of > the Council, which has *every* power except those that are explicitly > denied. > > Anyway, at this point, we don't need to constantly wait on Grant except > in cases where a signature is required or access to our finances is > required. Remember, it was designed this way on purpose to not impede > progress. > > -- > Chris Gianelloni > Release Engineering Strategic Lead > Games Developer > > -- gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org mailing list