| 1 |
On 18-06-01 20:35:35, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hello, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> As my second Bylaws change proposal, I would like to integrate |
| 5 |
> Foundation membership closer with our retirement procedures. I would |
| 6 |
> like the retired developers to be removed from Foundation by default, |
| 7 |
> unless they explicitly ask to stay. That way, we won't have to 'clean |
| 8 |
> up' inactive developers twice. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> The main idea would be that since Recruiters inform (or should inform) |
| 11 |
> new developers that they can join the Foundation now, I think it would |
| 12 |
> also be reasonable for undertakers to appropriately ask retired |
| 13 |
> developers if they would like to continue their Foundation activity, |
| 14 |
> and inform Trustees of the retirement otherwise. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> I'm not sure how to integrate it into Bylaws. However, I'd like to know |
| 17 |
> your opinion on the idea. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I am against this because the foundation and project have different goals |
| 21 |
and therefore different constituents. Just because you drop from one |
| 22 |
group does not mean you should automatically be dropped from the other. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Robin did bring up a good point about loosing contact with devs after |
| 25 |
they leave due to mail not arriving. Perhaps a rule requiring verification |
| 26 |
of mail once a year would be better? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire) |
Archives