Corporate sponsorship ( was Re: Going passive )
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
johannbg at gmail.com
Tue Nov 9 23:04:48 UTC 2010
On 11/09/2010 10:31 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> My understanding is that this would be largely acceptable. The Fedora team
> (Infrastructure, releng, packagers) would likely need to be very involved in
> figuring out the exact ways that such a merging of resources would take
> place and whether it would be useful (for instance, some company donating
> hardware for a secondary arch but not putting in any of manpower to run the
> servers, paying for bandwidth, electricity, or rackspace to host the
> hardware might end up being told that the contribution of the hardware isn't
> useful by itself).
> A very large donation might have other ramifications that I would imagine
> are largely positive, but seeing as companies that have donated to this have
> all been of a more moderate level (a few servers with hosting at remote
> facilities, allocation of people at remote facilities to provide hands-on
> technicians if needed, etc) we haven't had to deal with that.
Now that it's clear that Acme can be equal to Red Hat in those terms
what about politics as in appointed members?
Would it be granted equal amount of seats to appoint members or more
that is if it funded more and would it have the rights to appoint the
veto member ( FPL )?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the advisory-board