From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1QoJdk-0000WO-R0 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 02 Aug 2011 18:24:29 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2D12F21C29D; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 18:24:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smarthost02.mail.zen.net.uk (smarthost02.mail.zen.net.uk [212.23.3.141]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C715721C28C for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 18:24:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [62.3.120.141] (helo=NeddySeagoon) by smarthost02.mail.zen.net.uk with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1QoJdT-0000Ce-5r for gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 02 Aug 2011 18:24:11 +0000 Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 19:24:05 +0100 From: Roy Bamford Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: (from rich0@gentoo.org on Tue Aug 2 16:49:17 2011) X-Mailer: Balsa 2.4.8 Message-Id: <1312309445.2901.3@NeddySeagoon> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="=-exb87VTEMu5GzZluLnxk" X-Originating-Smarthost02-IP: [62.3.120.141] X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: cf753e3972a1ff61830fba5e4c349514 --=-exb87VTEMu5GzZluLnxk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2011.08.02 16:49, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 11:42 AM, William Hubbs > wrote: > > =A0But, you are saying that the council has to approve changes for > glep > > =A039 before they can come to a vote. This would mean that say a > majority > > =A0of developers doesn't like something in glep 39, but the council > > =A0doesn't approve the change. That change will never come to a vote. > In > > =A0other words, the council has control of the rules that govern it. > Is > > =A0that what you are intending? > > >=20 > Arguably the current rules are pretty ambiguous for the council. The > rules are fairly explicit for the Foundation, where there are rules > about having membership-convened meetings/etc. >=20 [snip] >=20 > Rich >=20 Team, The trustees are legally accountable and responsible for the operation=20 of the Gentoo Foundation Inc. Some things in the bylaws are there to=20 comply with statutes. The Gentoo council has no legal standing whatsoever, which I have=20 already said (at FOSEDEM) makes me a little nervous as a trustee, since=20 the council makes decisions on behalf of Gentoo that the Foundation=20 would be held both accountable and responsible for. There have been no=20 issues with that, yet. Maybe its time to reorganise Gentoo along standard corporate lines=20 again, as it was before drobbins left. If we go in that direction, the=20 council becomes a technical committee that is part of the Foundation.=20 GLEP39 is no longer needed and the Foundation bylaws are amended to=20 reflect the new structure. Such a major change would probably need to be put to a vote of=20 Foundation members as we would be changing the make up of what is=20 legally a company. (Members are equivelent to share/stock holders)=20 Note: Foundation members and Gentoo developers are two intersecting=20 sets. This gives rise to all sorts of interesting questions, opportunities=20 possibilities and challenges. Please discuss. --=20 Regards, Roy Bamford (Neddyseagoon) a member of gentoo-ops forum-mods trustees = --=-exb87VTEMu5GzZluLnxk Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAk44QMUACgkQTE4/y7nJvat2wwCcDSpcJxwmz1CjIW8j6GpewMRp 40oAoMpD2EOIe9gm06II50lr8vJzzslj =HiwY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-exb87VTEMu5GzZluLnxk--