| 1 |
On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 11:35 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hello, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> As my second Bylaws change proposal, I would like to integrate |
| 5 |
> Foundation membership closer with our retirement procedures. I would |
| 6 |
> like the retired developers to be removed from Foundation by default, |
| 7 |
> unless they explicitly ask to stay. That way, we won't have to 'clean |
| 8 |
> up' inactive developers twice. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> The main idea would be that since Recruiters inform (or should inform) |
| 11 |
> new developers that they can join the Foundation now, I think it would |
| 12 |
> also be reasonable for undertakers to appropriately ask retired |
| 13 |
> developers if they would like to continue their Foundation activity, |
| 14 |
> and inform Trustees of the retirement otherwise. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> I'm not sure how to integrate it into Bylaws. However, I'd like to know |
| 17 |
> your opinion on the idea. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
My opinion opposes this idea. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
"default fail" is not a good policy. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
What if there's a technical issue? What if they can't respond for some reason? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I'd just leave well enough alone and keep it a separate issue. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
And I do not think that retirement as a developer (staff or ebuild or |
| 28 |
otherwise) is a good reason to soft-remove a developer from foundation |
| 29 |
membership barring an objection. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
At present, if they voted in time they have cause to stay as a member, |
| 32 |
and if they're already inactive as a voter then they're already |
| 33 |
subject to removal anyway. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
I don't think we need to make it easier for foundation members to |
| 36 |
retire through inaction. This just makes a loophole that a foundation |
| 37 |
member could trip over by accident. In my opinion, since they can |
| 38 |
already be removed by failing to vote, automatically removing a |
| 39 |
retired developer unless they object is redundant. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Also, I do not think that it's wise to make assumptions like this on |
| 42 |
behalf of foundation members, that they want to be removed unless they |
| 43 |
say otherwise. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Plus there's always the chance that something screwy happens and they |
| 46 |
get removed against their will. What if they're busy? What if their |
| 47 |
email bounces? There are contingencies, and I don't see a reason to |
| 48 |
invite Murphy's law into this. |
Archives