| 1 |
On 2016.10.13 17:35, Matthew Thode wrote: |
| 2 |
> Current bylaws state that to become a member you need to petition the |
| 3 |
> trustees for membership to the foundation. What verification is done |
| 4 |
> by |
| 5 |
> trustees is up in the air. |
| 6 |
An @gentoo.org email reduces things to formalities. Foundation |
| 7 |
membership for devs is opt in rather that opt out as a few devs in the |
| 8 |
early days objected to opt out. |
| 9 |
Opt out makes a vote of members very difficult as there will be a large |
| 10 |
part of the membership who won't vote. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
For non dev Foundation members, the contribution to Gentoo is checked. |
| 13 |
bugsie, forums, #gentoo-* and so on. What is acceptable to show |
| 14 |
support for Gentoo is indeed left to the trustees on a case by case basis. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> Members also seem to be members for life |
| 17 |
> unless they remove themselves are are removed by a vote of the |
| 18 |
> trustees. |
| 19 |
or unless they fail to vote in two successive trustee elections. |
| 20 |
This has not worked as well as was expected for keeping the |
| 21 |
membership current as we don't always hold a vote. |
| 22 |
Trustee candidates can be elected unopposed. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> I suggest we use and/or modify the existing staff quiz for use as a |
| 26 |
> guide for who to admit, as 'graded' by trustees. I also suggest that |
| 27 |
> some for of positive acknowledgement that they will adhere to the CoC |
| 28 |
> would be helpful as well. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> Now, some have floated the idea that the foundation membership is |
| 31 |
> somewhat defunct, and that may be the case. Personally I think it |
| 32 |
> should be reaffirmed each year (or some other time period that is |
| 33 |
> agreed |
| 34 |
> upon). |
| 35 |
That was the intent behind the 'two successive trustee elections', |
| 36 |
which gives a period of two years. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
But to 'clean' it up I think we should ask the existing |
| 39 |
> members |
| 40 |
> to at least agree to the CoC, and possibly also be staff. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
That raises the bar to membership and dangles the carrot of a |
| 43 |
@gentoo.org and increases the workload on recruiters. |
| 44 |
I'm not in favour of that combination. |
| 45 |
It also raises the question of what project would such staffers belong |
| 46 |
to? |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
We had one such case in the past. devrel (as they were) were very |
| 49 |
reluctant to agree a similar proposal at that time, even as an |
| 50 |
exception. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
Non dev Foundation members typically contribute via Gentoo |
| 53 |
channels so the CoC behaviour is inferred. Enforcement is as it |
| 54 |
is for everyone. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
> |
| 57 |
> It's also been suggested that the foundation (active) membership is |
| 58 |
> waning, so once / if we decide on an update to the membership policy I |
| 59 |
> think we should mail the lists petitioning for memebers (-dev -project |
| 60 |
> and maybe some others) |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
That never does any harm anyway. |
| 63 |
> |
| 64 |
> The above would be an update to the bylaws and I want feedback before |
| 65 |
> I |
| 66 |
> propose it as an update. |
| 67 |
> |
| 68 |
> -- |
| 69 |
> Matthew Thode (prometheanfire) |
| 70 |
|
| 71 |
|
| 72 |
|
| 73 |
-- |
| 74 |
Regards, |
| 75 |
|
| 76 |
Roy Bamford |
| 77 |
(Neddyseagoon) a member of |
| 78 |
elections |
| 79 |
gentoo-ops |
| 80 |
forum-mods |
| 81 |
trustees |
Archives