Re: [gentoo-nfp] Potential Bylaw violation in 2017 Foundation member removal

[Matthew Thode]

On 18-05-31 21:17:12, Michał Górny wrote:
> W dniu czw, 31.05.2018 o godzinie 14∶01 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
> napisał:
> > On 18-05-31 20:45:32, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > Hello, everyone.
> > >
> > > I have recently noticed that Trustees have been removing active Gentoo
> > > developers from the Foundation.  This has at least taken place before
> > > the 2017/2018 Trustee election.  I would therefore like to request
> > > Trustees to reply to that in context of Foundation Bylaws.
> > >
> > >
> > > To be more specific, Bylaw 4.4 states (emphasis mine):
> > >
> > >   Section 4.4. Continuation of Membership
> > >
> > >   *Full members who remain Gentoo developers shall have their
> > >   membership continued until it is terminated in accordance
> > >   with 4.8 or 4.9.*
> > >
> > >   Full members who retire from the Gentoo project shall have there
> > >   membership continued while they indicate that they remain interested
> > >   in the affairs of the Foundation unless their membership is terminated
> > >   in accordance with 4.8 or 4.9.
> > >
> > >   Criteria for loss of interest in the foundation shall be determined by
> > >   the trustees, from time to time.  [1]
> > >
> > > For the record, 4.8 and 4.9 are, appropriately:
> > >
> > >   Section 4.8. Voluntary Withdrawal from Membership
> > >
> > >   Members may withdraw from membership in the foundation at any time
> > >   upon thirty (30) days' written, signed notice delivered to an officer
> > >   of the foundation, which notice may be by cryptographically signed
> > >   electronic mail with a valid signature.
> > >
> > >   Section 4.9. Termination from Membership.
> > >
> > >   Membership may be terminated by a majority vote of the board of
> > >   trustees in the event that any member acts contrary to the purpose(s)
> > >   of the Gentoo Foundation.
> > >
> > > The Bylaws therefore clearly state that active Gentoo developers remain
> > > Foundation members until they *voluntarily* withdraw their membership,
> > > or act contrary to the purposes of Foundation.  Removal as a result of
> > > 'loss of activity' applies only to retired developers.
> > >
> > >
> > > Now, in May of 2015 the Foundation member list have been updated with
> > > a number of members being removed (with no comment suggesting why
> > > the update took place) [2].  According to data on file (LDAP), among
> > > the removed Foundation members there were 10 active Gentoo developers
> > > at the time:
> > >
> > > - deathwing00
> > > - djc
> > > - flameeyes
> > > - hattya
> > > - jkt
> > > - rafaelmartins
> > > - scarabeus
> > > - titanofold
> > > - xmw
> > > - yngwin
> > >
> > > Even if we assume that some of those people were already in process of
> > > being retired (or considered for retirement) at the time, this leaves 5
> > > developers who are still active today.
> > >
> > > I have confirmed that the people listed above were also removed from
> > > voter list for 2017/2018 Trustee election [3].  Apparently the decision
> > > was made during the 20170326 meeting, and was approved by positive vote
> > > from all Trustees [4][5].
> > >
> > >
> > > So why were you removing active Gentoo developers, contrary
> > > to the Bylaws?  Were you unaware of Bylaws by which the Foundation
> > > operates?  Or did you fail to verify the list?
> > >
> > > What should be done about developers who were unjustly removed?  What
> > > should be done about Trustees elected in 2017/2018 election whose
> > > electorate was changed in violation of Bylaws?
> > >
> > >
> > > [1]:https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Bylaws
> > > [2]:https://wiki.gentoo.org/index.php?title=Foundation:Member_List&diff=642628&oldid=627658
> > > [3]:https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/elections.git/tree/completed/trustees-201707/voters-trustees-201707
> > > [4]:https://projects.gentoo.org/foundation/2017/20170326.log.txt
> > > [5]:https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation_Talk:Meetings/2017/02
> > >
> >
> > What we did was legal, as it was affirmed by a vote (fulfilling 4.9).
> > Cause given was given in your 5th link, failure to vote signifying working
> > against the interests of the foundation.
>
> I understand that you feel like you've been put in a corner and are
> clutching at straws to justify the fact that you've probably violated
> the law...  but how exactly does not voting implies working against
> the interests of the foundation?
>

It is my personal view that voting is required to show interest in the
foundation and that interest is required so as to not act against the
interests of the foundation.  If you disagree with that, it's OK, it is
my opinion.  You are free to not vote for me (or vote me out under
section 5.6).

> Given that the purpose of the Foundation is 'far the advancement and
> education and promotion of software development in an open
> environment'...  how does not voting in an election go against
> 'advancement and education and promotion of software development
> in an open environment'?  Are you implying that as a result of non-
> voting the result of the election was harmful to the Foundation?
>
> Also, since those people were apparently deliberately working against
> the interests of the Foundation, are you going to attempt to pursue
> legal action against them?
>

Deliberiteness is not a requirement, my reason for voting was passively
working against the interests of the foundation.  My opinion is that
adherance to compulsory voting is one metric to use to determin is
someone is working for or against the foundation.

> > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation_Talk:Meetings/2017/02
> >
> > It can (and likely will) be argued that is not enough for the kicked
> > people to be kicked, but the Trustees determined that it was enough.
> > Further, the kicked people were never disallowed from reapplying to the
> > foundation (but that's beside your point).
>
> Were they informed of that?  If you tell someone that you're kicking him
> from some group because of some action, they usually take that as a kind
> of punishment and don't assume they can immediately reapply.
>

I was not in charge of that communication.

-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)