[gentoo-nfp] [RFC] Alternative methods for determining 'interest in Foundation affairs'

[Michael Everitt <gentoo@veremit.xyz>]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3470 bytes --]

On 06/09/19 18:32, Alec Warner wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 9:48 AM Michael Everitt <gentoo@veremit.xyz
> <mailto:gentoo@veremit.xyz>> wrote:
>
>     On 06/09/19 15:36, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>     > On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 06:51:00PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
>     >> On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 6:42 PM Robin H. Johnson
>     <robbat2@gentoo.org <mailto:robbat2@gentoo.org>> wrote:
>     >>> On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 01:45:25PM -0700, Alec Warner wrote:
>     >>>>> 3. It is really meaningless.  Casting a vote does not really
>     indicate
>     >>>>> any interest in GF.  It only indicates that someone has done
>     the minimal
>     >>>>> effort to avoid being kicked.  There is no reason to conflate
>     the two.
>     >>>> I'm certainly interested in other avenues of interest, but I
>     don't see very
>     >>>> many in this thread other than "AGM attendance" and "asking
>     people if they
>     >>>> are interested[0]"
>     >>> - Does involvement on mailing lists count?
>     >>> - What other ways outside development might somebody be involved in
>     >>>   Gentoo? Not everybody is a developer, let alone an ebuild
>     developer.
>     >>>   What if we wound up with PR people who weren't devs at all, but
>     loved
>     >>>   to talk about Gentoo?
>     >> Gentoo developers do not have to have commit access.  If somebody is
>     >> doing significant PR work for Gentoo then they should be made a
>     >> developer.  Developers do not need to pass the ebuild quiz.
>     > I meant "developer" as the generic "one who develops software".
>     > Ebuilds are not the only code-like activity, there's multiple other
>     > software packages that Gentoo relies on: openrc, netifrc, genkernel,
>     > catalyst, eselect are some of them.
>     > They may have commit access to those packages, and not to ebuilds.
>     >
>     > I need to distinguish between:
>     > - ebuild coding contribution
>     > - non-ebuild-coding contribution
>     > - non-coding contribution
>     >
>     >> Anybody with an @g.o email address is a developer.
>     >>
>     >> We used to use the term "staff" but anybody who used to be considered
>     >> "staff" is now considered a "developer."
>     > I stated when the switch away from "staff" was done, that I felt we
>     were
>     > doing ourselves a dis-service by not picking a better word than
>     > "developer" - something that includes all of the contributions above,
>     > without implying specific technical skills. "Contributor" was
>     down-voted
>     > at the time.
>     >
>     Reading (somewhat extensively) between the lines, there is a subtle move
>     for those developing code and ebuilds to "take over" control and
>     management
>     of the distribution (cf. electorate of 'council'). Whether this is
>     something that is (1) really happening or (2) desirable, I shall leave as
>     an exercise for the reader; but I thought was probably worth
>     highlighting.
>
>
> Most of the existing board resigned in the last election, so if anyone
> wanted to 'take over' the Foundation there was ample opportunity; but
> everyone who resigned was re-elected. It seems like this theory has some
> holes in practice ;)
>
> -A 
Yeah, I believe there are some "hysterical raisins" in play here also ..
something about all the power without so much of the responsibility ..
*duck, cover*

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 5497 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]