| 1 |
On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 11:41 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> W dniu pią, 01.06.2018 o godzinie 13∶23 -0700, użytkownik Raymond |
| 3 |
> Jennings napisał: |
| 4 |
>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 11:35 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> > Hello, |
| 6 |
>> > |
| 7 |
>> > As my second Bylaws change proposal, I would like to integrate |
| 8 |
>> > Foundation membership closer with our retirement procedures. I would |
| 9 |
>> > like the retired developers to be removed from Foundation by default, |
| 10 |
>> > unless they explicitly ask to stay. That way, we won't have to 'clean |
| 11 |
>> > up' inactive developers twice. |
| 12 |
>> > |
| 13 |
>> > The main idea would be that since Recruiters inform (or should inform) |
| 14 |
>> > new developers that they can join the Foundation now, I think it would |
| 15 |
>> > also be reasonable for undertakers to appropriately ask retired |
| 16 |
>> > developers if they would like to continue their Foundation activity, |
| 17 |
>> > and inform Trustees of the retirement otherwise. |
| 18 |
>> > |
| 19 |
>> > I'm not sure how to integrate it into Bylaws. However, I'd like to know |
| 20 |
>> > your opinion on the idea. |
| 21 |
>> |
| 22 |
>> My opinion opposes this idea. |
| 23 |
>> |
| 24 |
>> "default fail" is not a good policy. |
| 25 |
>> |
| 26 |
>> What if there's a technical issue? What if they can't respond for some reason? |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Technical issue preventing them from giving a simple reply within six |
| 29 |
> months? |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
>> I'd just leave well enough alone and keep it a separate issue. |
| 32 |
>> |
| 33 |
>> And I do not think that retirement as a developer (staff or ebuild or |
| 34 |
>> otherwise) is a good reason to soft-remove a developer from foundation |
| 35 |
>> membership barring an objection. |
| 36 |
>> |
| 37 |
>> At present, if they voted in time they have cause to stay as a member, |
| 38 |
>> and if they're already inactive as a voter then they're already |
| 39 |
>> subject to removal anyway. |
| 40 |
>> |
| 41 |
>> I don't think we need to make it easier for foundation members to |
| 42 |
>> retire through inaction. This just makes a loophole that a foundation |
| 43 |
>> member could trip over by accident. In my opinion, since they can |
| 44 |
>> already be removed by failing to vote, automatically removing a |
| 45 |
>> retired developer unless they object is redundant. |
| 46 |
>> |
| 47 |
>> Also, I do not think that it's wise to make assumptions like this on |
| 48 |
>> behalf of foundation members, that they want to be removed unless they |
| 49 |
>> say otherwise. |
| 50 |
>> |
| 51 |
>> Plus there's always the chance that something screwy happens and they |
| 52 |
>> get removed against their will. What if they're busy? What if their |
| 53 |
>> email bounces? There are contingencies, and I don't see a reason to |
| 54 |
>> invite Murphy's law into this. |
| 55 |
> |
| 56 |
> Gentoo provides e-mail service to developers. Bugzilla mail is single |
| 57 |
> most important kind of mail developers receive. If they don't receive |
| 58 |
> Bugzilla mail for six months, then they're supposed to notice that. |
| 59 |
> |
| 60 |
> -- |
| 61 |
> Best regards, |
| 62 |
> Michał Górny |
| 63 |
> |
| 64 |
> |
| 65 |
That may be, but I still oppose this motion on non technical grounds |
| 66 |
that I have already cited. The technical issues are only some of the |
| 67 |
ones I raised. There are others. |
Archives