On Sunday 25 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: > On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 04:54 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Saturday 24 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: > > > It looks like our social contract doesn't prohibit Gentoo from being > > > dependent upon a single sponsor or corporation. In the interests of > > > keeping Gentoo run by the developers rather than any outside party, how > > > about the following addition to the Social Contract? > > > > > > <heading>We will be run by the Development Community</> > > > Gentoo will be run by the development community. We will never allow > > > ourselves to be reliant upon a single sponsor or corporation. > > > > i dont see why this is required ? ignoring the fact that the wording is > > way too vague to do anything but cause confusion and people to spout long > > winded rants, seems like useless nitpicking about an issue that doesnt > > exist > > Supposedly >80% of our stuff is hosted in one building, where would we > find ourselves were this building to building to burn to the ground? Get > flooded?
and how does writing a vague rule into our Social Contract propose to help the situation ? just because we have a rule that says our infrastructure needs to be spread out among sponsors doesnt mean sponsors are going to materialize out of nowhere to make this happen our machines live where people have been so kind as to offer space/electricity/bandwidth/etc... -mike
pgpjLYRHPtRnx.pgp
Description: PGP signature
