Re: [gentoo-nfp] [RFC] Bylaws change: removing retired developers by default

[Roy Bamford]

On 2018.06.04 06:47, Michał Górny wrote:

[snip]

> Keeping inactive members on the member list does not imply they get
> involved.  It only means that Foundation member count is inflated,
> and as we've already seen that affects the constant problem of
> reaching quorum and low participation in elections. Artificially prolonging
> membership of inactive people is simply unfair to people who actually
> want to participate, if not hostile to the goals of the Foundation.

[snip]

>
> --
> Best regards,
> Michał Górny
>

Historically, the foundations affairs have been organised so that a 
quorum at members meetings is never required, thus this is a non 
problem.

Members with no valid email address, so that they can't be contacted
is a different problem. There is an argument that says the foundation 
should take all reasonable steps to contact such members, just as
undertakers do, then drop the member without waiting for two elections.

The second point is fallacious. The distro has a large number of inactive
devs at any time, some temporarily, but I don't see any sign of it  
being unfair to people who actually want to participate, if not hostile to 
the goals of the distro. (Please excuse the paraphrasing)

Further, I see very few signs of people who actually want to participate
in the foundation coming forward. If these people existed, they could 
start today. The foundation needs the offices of Secretary and Treasurer 
filled. dabbott is in the process of resigning and robbat2 has indicated 
he is continuing because the alternative is a Treasurer vacancy.  
These two roles are officers. Neither Foundation membership nor a 
seat on the board are required to fill them.

Where are the participants for these offices?

-- 

Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) a member of
elections
gentoo-ops
forum-mods