>> What if we moved from "more than one member employed" to "more than 1/3" >> or "more than 40%"? Would that give the Committee enough wiggle room >> going forward? > > Probably should speak in fractions of sevenths, otherwise rounding is > ambiguous. A hard limit of 3/7th would avoid majority control by any > one employer while being flexible with membership.
Shouldn't it only really count if there are activities being performed on behalf of the company involved? Canonical and I doubt samsung probably never paid any time to inkscape development or management for any of their hires. And in that way Bryce et al are not hired by those companies on this project, but are self-hired. For example I work for BasisTech on inkscape, a handful of hours a year as a contractor. Two BasisTech people on the board could be a problem. But I also have done work for the FSF, RedHat and a ton of others who never asked me to work on inkscape. For us contractors, we could quite quickly hit any number of limits if /any/ employment relationship counted. Some sort of declaration for board members about who they work on inkscape for (if any) in their board profiles would make that information transparent too. Best Regards, Martin Owens ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website, sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/ _______________________________________________ Inkscape-board mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-board
