| 1 |
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@g.o> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Current bylaws state that to become a member you need to petition the |
| 5 |
> trustees for membership to the foundation. What verification is done by |
| 6 |
> trustees is up in the air. Members also seem to be members for life |
| 7 |
> unless they remove themselves are are removed by a vote of the trustees. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> I suggest we use and/or modify the existing staff quiz for use as a |
| 11 |
> guide for who to admit, as 'graded' by trustees. I also suggest that |
| 12 |
> some for of positive acknowledgement that they will adhere to the CoC |
| 13 |
> would be helpful as well. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I wouldn't use the term graded. Just add a requirement that they must have |
| 17 |
passed the staff quiz, with a grandfather clause for existing members. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
The CoC thing sounds fine, provided that you are willing to enforce it |
| 20 |
(e.g. by terminated the membership of violators.) Exercise due care in how |
| 21 |
this bylaw is worded. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Now, some have floated the idea that the foundation membership is |
| 26 |
> somewhat defunct, and that may be the case. Personally I think it |
| 27 |
> should be reaffirmed each year (or some other time period that is agreed |
| 28 |
> upon). But to 'clean' it up I think we should ask the existing members |
| 29 |
> to at least agree to the CoC, and possibly also be staff. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
I do not want to bifurcate (or trifurcate) the structure. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
The community has 3 types of members: |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
1) Foundation members |
| 37 |
2) Developers |
| 38 |
3) Users |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
All three agree to the CoC implicitly by being a member of the community. |
| 41 |
It would be agreeable to me to see more wording added to the bylaws that |
| 42 |
members who violate the community guidelines could have the membership |
| 43 |
revoked (in addition to any comrel action.) Again, careful on the wording |
| 44 |
of such bylaws. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
> It's also been suggested that the foundation (active) membership is |
| 49 |
> waning, so once / if we decide on an update to the membership policy I |
| 50 |
> think we should mail the lists petitioning for memebers (-dev -project |
| 51 |
> and maybe some others) |
| 52 |
> |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
I'm not going to recruit based on "suggestion." Either we have the data on |
| 55 |
members or we don't. If we do, present it. If we don't, we should probably |
| 56 |
get some data before acting. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
> The above would be an update to the bylaws and I want feedback before I |
| 60 |
> propose it as an update. |
| 61 |
> |
| 62 |
> -- |
| 63 |
> Matthew Thode (prometheanfire) |
| 64 |
> |
| 65 |
> |
Archives