On 27 Juny, 12:32, Cédric Krier <[email protected]> wrote: > Also we must not forget that employees don't stay indefinitly in a company. So > I think it is good that a company can have a way to keep his voice in the > foundation independently of keeping his representative employee.
Yes, an employee could change the company that belongs to, but he could remain working for the Tryton project so I think he must not be forced to leave it. Obviously, if the employee decreases/stops his implication to the Tryton project, he must leave it (voluntary or as a decision of the other foundation members in the application of the tryton foundation rules). The same applies for the companies. If the company decreases/stops its implication to the Tryton project, it must leave it. If an employee of a "Tryton company" leave this company, and the company still works with Tryton, other employees involved with tryton could ask to be members of the foundation. As I said before, we have a similar opinion, one puts more emphasis in companies and the other in individuals that represents these companies. We think is better that some people make the decisions of the foundation (members) and others, companies or people, fund the foundation (sponsors) to avoid mix the decisions with money. Jordi -- [email protected] mailing list
