[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-project
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-project] Social Contract clean-up
From:       Rich Freeman <rich0 () gentoo ! org>
Date:       2018-03-31 23:58:24
Message-ID: CAGfcS_npHdC--o9+LnVFHkFW0E-o5uq1zA=ogxrWKbGfo423Qw () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 7:35 PM, Daniel Robbins <drobbins@funtoo.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 5:17 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> So, this has been debated before, so I won't elaborate on it
>> extensively, but I think it would be healthier to have these sorts of
>> users become developers and vote for both the Council and the
>> Trustees, than to have two different constituencies, because this only
>> increases the opportunity for conflict between these bodies.
>
> I disagree strongly and think this is unwise because many may contribute but
> not have time to go through the recruitment process or any interest in being
> part of the project. Also, it is critical that there is representation from
> outside of the project proper, as the Gentoo developer world can become
> (many will argue that is already has become) a kind of mono-culture.

Is the intent really for these non-developer Foundation members to be
considered "outside of the project proper?"

Are they stakeholder or aren't they?  If they are, then we shouldn't
treat them like second class citizens.  If they aren't, then we
shouldn't treat them as if they are.  Certainly we can listen to them,
but they shouldn't be part of formal governance.

If the concern is that we become a "mono-culture" wouldn't it make
more sense to bring in the voices that would make it not be a
mono-culture?

How is it better to instead keep those voices outside, but then give
them the power to shame those who are actually actively contributing?

-- 
Rich

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]