| 1 |
On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 4:41 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 5:04 PM Raymond Jennings <shentino@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> My point is that someone who has contributed in the past should have a |
| 5 |
>> presumption that they have the interests of the foundation and project |
| 6 |
>> in mind. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> This assumes that the project never changes. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Today everybody working on Gentoo wants to do A. Tomorrow everybody |
| 11 |
> working on Gentoo wants to do B. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> The fact that somebody who no longer wants to work on Gentoo still |
| 14 |
> wants it to do A is simply irrelevant. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> The alternative is infighting. The people who want Gentoo to do A |
| 17 |
> have no ability to actually make that happen unless they actually do |
| 18 |
> the work themselves. If they do, then they're no longer former |
| 19 |
> contributors, but current ones. However, the people who want Gentoo |
| 20 |
> to do A can try to block people from working on B instead. Then |
| 21 |
> nothing gets done while everybody fights on lists and with voting. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
The fighting has concerned me deeply, hence my recent "A call for |
| 24 |
peace" message. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> The Foundation should absolutely serve those willing to do the work, |
| 27 |
> and not the other way around. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
This, I agree with, which is why I'm *not* saying that contribution |
| 30 |
per se shouldn't be required. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Where we disagree, perhaps, is whether work done in the past should |
| 33 |
count or not. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Bug 620010 for example called for my foundation membership to be |
| 36 |
audited. Language used aside, I think that having my contributions |
| 37 |
(even if they were in the past) verified was a good thing. The work |
| 38 |
was done by me, even if it wasn't in ways that were obvious, and even |
| 39 |
if it was done in the past. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
>> I just see no reason to make retirees jump through unneeded hoops to |
| 42 |
>> preserve their foundation membership. |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
> Neither do I, hence the wording of my proposal: |
| 45 |
> 1. Immediately purge members at any time they are not an active dev, |
| 46 |
> without choice. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
I disagree with this. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
> Nobody would need to jump through hoops because they simply would not |
| 51 |
> be given the option to do so. The moment they retire, they lose their |
| 52 |
> membership and voting rights. Only active developers would be allowed |
| 53 |
> to be members. |
| 54 |
> |
| 55 |
>> Also, what if the prospective mentors are busy and they can't get |
| 56 |
>> acquainted with anyone else? |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
> People make time for what they consider important. If not a single |
| 59 |
> developer thinks that a potential contributor is worth their time to |
| 60 |
> mentor (including all the Trustees), who is to say that every single |
| 61 |
> one of them is wrong? |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
To be clear I was referring to the potential mentors being too busy to |
| 64 |
be acquainted. Plus, importance is relative, and a person's finite |
| 65 |
attention span is something subject to competition. |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
> Talk is cheap. Votes are cheap. Actions are not. It is the latter |
| 68 |
> that should earn somebody the recognition to enable the former. |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
I agree that actions should count. |
| 71 |
|
| 72 |
We might disagree on if they also need to be current. |
| 73 |
|
| 74 |
Whatever we agree or disagree on though, I think that we would agree |
| 75 |
that someone who acts *against* the foundation would rightly forfeit |
| 76 |
their influence. |
| 77 |
|
| 78 |
Examples might be baseless threats of a lawsuit against the |
| 79 |
foundation, or deliberate and malicious infringement of gentoo |
| 80 |
trademarks, or sabotage of infra's hardware, or malicious violations |
| 81 |
of the Gentoo CoC. |
| 82 |
|
| 83 |
> -- |
| 84 |
> Rich |
| 85 |
> |
Archives