On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 11:55 AM, William L. Thomson Jr. <wlt-ml@o-sinc.com>
wrote:

> On Friday, October 14, 2016 11:28:18 AM EDT Raymond Jennings wrote:
> > A developer should always be able to say "no vote because I'm too busy
> > coding and don't give a rat's ass about foundation politics" in a trustee
> > election.
>
> True, but it really does not take long to vote. That is really the only
> obligation, annually.


That's what I mean, a developer's vote should always be able to be
"abstain" if they wish.


> I can understand anyone objecting to membership, but the
> burden is VERY little if any. Plus not really required to vote, just
> required
> if you want to remain a member.
>
> > I am wary of putting more burdens on a developer than they are prepared
> > for, and I oppose requiring developers to be foundation members or vice
> > versa or staff or vice versa.
>
> I agree.
>
> Part of the idea is if the Foundation was more functional and played more
> of a
> role in Gentoo. Developers may have more interest as they may have benefit.
>
> Say your working on some hardware platform. The Foundation makes a deal
> with
> that vendor. Now the developer has access to hardware they may not
> otherwise.
> That may give the developer more interest and reason to participate in the
> Foundation. If their involvement is conducive to development.
>
> --
> William L. Thomson Jr.
>