I would like to propose that the council be formally recognized in the bylaws. Relatedly I think it would be a good idea also to formalize the definition of what a gentoo developer (both staff and ebuild versions) actually is. It's also probably a good idea to recognize comrel, infra, recruiting, etc. As it stands right now, legally, the above terms are undefined. Only the term "developer" is used and then only as a qualification for trusteeship afaik. My main concern is the lack of formality. It's great that the GLEPs documenting these things are in effect and apparently relatively stable so far, but given the lack of formal definitions in the bylaws combined with the fact that developership is a listed prerequisite for trusteeship, and also the fact that infra answers to council and yet is managing assets legally owned/leased/possessed by the foundation concerns me. Having the above stuff enshrined in the bylaws may actually help preserve them later if the status of the foundation is affected. Reproducible: Always Actual Results: council and developer are undefined in the bylaws Expected Results: trusteeship doesn't depend on a term that is itself undefined
By robbat2's request I'm adding more information. The GLEP process itself is formally documented in GLEP 1. The council is defined in GLEP 39. Developer definition not yet found, but in practice it would seem to be defined as anyone who has been recruited by recruiters after an existing developer mentored them, and who has not been retired by undertakers or removed by comrel.
I don't think we are going to define terms in our bylaws at this time. -A
