Re: Proposed Membership Guidelines

[rms39 columbia edu (Russell Steinthal)]

On 04 Jan 2001 12:12:22 PST, Gregory Leblanc wrote:

>I'm assuming that replies should be headed for both lists.

Actually, I just sent a courtesy copy to the membership committee so 
they would know I posted the draft.  I'm 99.9% certain that all of 
are on foundation-list, so I don't think it's necessary to copy 
membership gnome org on discussion.

>On 04 Jan 2001 13:23:10 -0500, Russell Steinthal wrote:

>[snip]
>> information which will lead to the approval of your application.  If 
>> you are still dissatisfied with the Membership Committee's 
>> determination, you may appeal the decision to the Board of Directors
>> by e-mailing board gnome org 
>
>Are these (I snipped one address, and Evolution can't undo) email
>addresses already fixed and decided?  Just out of "correctness", they're
>both part of the GNOME Foundation, and perhaps should be written as
>"board foundation gnome org", so that it's very clear that these email
>addresses deal with Foundation issues, and not GNOME technical issues.
>Other than this tiny nit, I like the looks of this draft.  Thanks,

The e-mail addresses listed are already in use, but that doesn't 
necessarily mean they couldn't change in the future.  (Forwarding 
aliases are a wonderful thing.)  

For what it's worth, though, IMHO, there's nothing wrong with equating
gnome.org and the Foundation.  The technical stuff which is excluded
from the board's authority remains with the individual maintainers, 
rather than any other organization.  Gnome.org refers to the umbrella 
project, just as the GNOME Foundation does.

-Russell


-- 
Russell Steinthal		Columbia Law School, Class of 2002
<rms39 columbia edu>		Columbia College, Class of 1999
<steintr nj org>		UNIX System Administrator, nj.org