Re: [gentoo-nfp] [RFC] Alternative methods for determining 'interest in Foundation affairs'

[Raymond Jennings]

On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 2:51 AM Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o> wrote:

> On 2019.09.06 06:29, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> Michał,
>
> [snip]
>
> Some history.
> In 2008, when I was elected as a trustee, there was no way to retire
> Foundation members. All developers and staffers became members
> automatically. It was an opt out system, which a few people did not
> agree with.
> With the Foundation being only four years old, there was no way that
> a meeting of members, or action by members could ever be achieved.
>
> The original problem that this standard operating procedure (SoP),
> it was deliberately not a bylaw, was introduced to retire 'inactive'
> members.
>
> >
> > I really think it would be better if people voted only if they really
> > wanted to vote, not because otherwise they could be kicked out.
>

For what it's worth, I voted because it was my duty as a foundation member,
AND I care about the distro the foundation supports.

Me potentially being kicked out if I don't vote is of course on my mind,
but avoiding removal isn't my primary concern that motivates me to vote.  I
actually did read the manifestos etc of the candidates, for the record, and
I only made a vote for a single candidate, and expressly selected "reopen
nominations" for every other spot on my ballot because other than the
candidate that I *did* vote for, I didn't agree with their philosophies.

That works if you have some other way to determine the active
> membership.
>
> The reason that missing two elections was initially used was that it
> allows for a long Holiday now and again. At that time, votes were
> not always required, as candidates could be returned unopposed.
> Just like in any other incorporated entity.
>
> The rule was a SoP so it could be tested and changed by a vote
> of the board as changing the bylaws involves paying fees to NM.
> Besides, the process needed to be tested to ensure it had the
> desired effect.
> >
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > I think having a quorum is one of the things desired.  If Trustees are
> > opposed to lowering the requirement for a quorum, then kicking people
> > who are not really interested is another way of achieving that.
>
> Thats were we came in. How?
>

I'm aware of bylaw clause 4.9 at the very least.

I'm not a trustee, but as a member I oppose any motion that would make it
easier for foundation members to be removed that doesn't also give the
prospective removee a fair chance to oppose their removal.  I'm hesitant to
allow a foundation member to be removed involuntarily simply on grounds of
an alleged lack of interest, and I say alleged for a reason.

If someone doesn't respond to pings or goes incommunicado, that's one thing.
Someone actively resisting their removal and getting removed in spite of
that is another.

Considering that the undertakers attempted recently to involuntarily retire
a developer in spite of said developer's objection, and that said motion
was only stopped by direct intervention from the council, I believe I have
a good reason to advocate caution in regards to social procedures.

In my opinion, any case where a foundation member should be removed in the
face of them objecting to the removal is also a case that should be
reserved for invocation of bylaw clause 4.9.

> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Michał Górny
> >
> >
>
> I'll point out that it may never matter in practice. The Foundations
> assets may be transferred to an umbrella before the end of the current
> Foundation financial year, so whatever is decided will never be used.
>

For what it's worth, I intend to oppose this motion to the fullest extent
possible.  I am currently a foundation member, and in spite of my extensive
(and not worth elaborating on) record of failing to properly fit into the
gentoo community, I still care about the distro, and I do not think that
dissolving the foundation would be in the best interests of the mission it
was formed to support.

>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Roy Bamford
> (Neddyseagoon) a member of
> elections
> gentoo-ops
> forum-mods
> arm64