| 1 |
On 18-06-01 20:22:36, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi, everyone. |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Following the recent discussion, I would like to propose updating |
| 5 |
> the Foundation bylaws to provide uniform 'removal for inactivity' for |
| 6 |
> all Foundation members. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> More specifically, I propose changing the first two paragraphs |
| 9 |
> of section 4.4 (Continuation of Membership) from: |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Full members who remain Gentoo developers shall have their membership |
| 12 |
> continued until it is terminated in accordance with 4.8 or 4.9. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Full members who retire from the Gentoo project shall have there |
| 15 |
> membership continued while they indicate that they remain interested |
| 16 |
> in the affairs of the Foundation unless their membership is |
| 17 |
> terminated in accordance with 4.8 or 4.9. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> to: |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Full members shall have their membership continued while they indicate |
| 22 |
> that they remain interested in the affairs of the Foundation, unless |
| 23 |
> their membership is terminated in accordance with 4.8 or 4.9. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> (leaving the last paragraph unchanged) |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> This means to solve two problems: |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> 1. Technically, the inactivity-removal procedure does not apply to non- |
| 31 |
> developer Foundation members, and given that unlike regular developers |
| 32 |
> they won't become 'retired developers', they would never be removed. |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> 2. The active developer status restriction doesn't seem to have much |
| 35 |
> value. On one hand, it probably makes sense because the removed |
| 36 |
> developer could reapply for membership right away, so forcefully |
| 37 |
> removing him seems pointless. On the other hand, there's no point to |
| 38 |
> prevent Trustees from cleaning up the member list periodically if some |
| 39 |
> of the devs don't really want to stay. |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> That said, I think the new wording would make the removal procedure |
| 42 |
> cleaner and more fair, as the removal rules would be the same for all |
| 43 |
> Foundation members and the list could be determined from a single data |
| 44 |
> source. |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
> [1]:https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Bylaws#Section_4.4._Continuation_of_Membership |
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
Please present the full wording of what the new 4.4 bylaw would be (for |
| 50 |
clarity). I think simplifying the bylaw to one class makes sense. The |
| 51 |
same should probably be done for 4.3's admission procedures, having two |
| 52 |
forms of entry/exit doesn't make total sense. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
I think that Rich's proposal is good, we do need voting to ensure |
| 55 |
quorum. Though if the voting piece is removed from 4.4 it can be take |
| 56 |
up by the more generic 4.9 (or added to 4.8 as 'not voting in x |
| 57 |
elections will constitute a voluntary withdrawl'). |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
-- |
| 60 |
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire) |
Archives