Gentoo Archives: gentoo-nfp

From: Alec Warner <antarus@g.o>
To: gentoo-nfp <gentoo-nfp@l.g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-nfp] Potential Bylaw violation in 2017 Foundation member removal
Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 19:13:44
Message-Id: CAAr7Pr-zdMeP=paKKzvOJxSemkEJ7xz9ZLbKgEZw6MSyNPbOVA@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-nfp] Potential Bylaw violation in 2017 Foundation member removal by Ulrich Mueller
1 On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 3:08 PM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote:
2
3 > >>>>> On Thu, 31 May 2018, Michał Górny wrote:
4 >
5 > > Now, in May of 2015 the Foundation member list have been updated
6 > > with a number of members being removed (with no comment suggesting
7 > > why the update took place) [2]. According to data on file (LDAP),
8 > > among the removed Foundation members there were 10 active Gentoo
9 > > developers at the time:
10 >
11 > > - deathwing00
12 > > - djc
13 > > - flameeyes
14 > > - hattya
15 > > - jkt
16 > > - rafaelmartins
17 > > - scarabeus
18 > > - titanofold
19 > > - xmw
20 > > - yngwin
21 >
22 > > [...]
23 >
24 > > What should be done about developers who were unjustly removed?
25 >
26
27 I think a first step would be to ask if the aggrieved actually care. I've
28 seen no evidence that they:
29
30 - Noticed.
31 - Tried to vote but could not.
32
33 -A
34
35
36 > As a Foundation member, I suggest that all 10 developers listed above
37 > are reinstated as Foundation members. For the developers that are
38 > still active today there should be no question about this.
39 >
40 > The retired developers were deprived of their right to vote in any
41 > election. So IMHO their member status should be restored too, and the
42 > "two elections rule" should be reset for them, and apply only to
43 > future elections.
44 >
45 > Ulrich
46 >