Corporate sponsorship ( was Re: Going passive )

"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" johannbg at
Wed Nov 10 00:44:17 UTC 2010

On 11/09/2010 11:13 PM, Matt Domsch wrote:
>> 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 )?
> If we were to have a sponsor of equivalent stature to Red Hat,
> undoubtedly as terms of such sponsorship (or really membership if to
> be considered equal), the layout of the Board and privileges would get
> re-evaluated.  Given no one is stepping forward to offer several $M
> US, I don't want to travel too far down this hypothetical scenario.

Hum not following you're reasoning here I would think the layout of the 
board and privileges would need to exist before hand but not get 
re-evaluated afterwards for those wanting to become members equivalent 
stature to Red Hat and willing to aid in future grow of the project.

I would say that those considering if they should start pouring water in 
their own pool or simply just put on a bathing suit and apply for a 
membership and jump into our existing one wont since the layout for the 
board does not exist for them and we do not publicly share the number of 
$ Red Hat is spending into the project ( or any other sponsor for that 
matter ) on yearly bases ( as far as I know ) which I'm pretty sure we 
need to make public ( that is if we dont already ) if we are open for 
new members equivalent stature to Red Hat to joining the project.

Is my logic flawed?


More information about the advisory-board mailing list