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

[Michał Górny]

W dniu pią, 01.06.2018 o godzinie 13∶23 -0700, użytkownik Raymond
Jennings napisał:
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 11:35 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > As my second Bylaws change proposal, I would like to integrate
> > Foundation membership closer with our retirement procedures.  I would
> > like the retired developers to be removed from Foundation by default,
> > unless they explicitly ask to stay.  That way, we won't have to 'clean
> > up' inactive developers twice.
> >
> > The main idea would be that since Recruiters inform (or should inform)
> > new developers that they can join the Foundation now, I think it would
> > also be reasonable for undertakers to appropriately ask retired
> > developers if they would like to continue their Foundation activity,
> > and inform Trustees of the retirement otherwise.
> >
> > I'm not sure how to integrate it into Bylaws.  However, I'd like to know
> > your opinion on the idea.
>
> My opinion opposes this idea.
>
> "default fail" is not a good policy.
>
> What if there's a technical issue?  What if they can't respond for some reason?

Technical issue preventing them from giving a simple reply within six
months?

> I'd just leave well enough alone and keep it a separate issue.
>
> And I do not think that retirement as a developer (staff or ebuild or
> otherwise) is a good reason to soft-remove a developer from foundation
> membership barring an objection.
>
> At present, if they voted in time they have cause to stay as a member,
> and if they're already inactive as a voter then they're already
> subject to removal anyway.
>
> I don't think we need to make it easier for foundation members to
> retire through inaction.  This just makes a loophole that a foundation
> member could trip over by accident.  In my opinion, since they can
> already be removed by failing to vote, automatically removing a
> retired developer unless they object is redundant.
>
> Also, I do not think that it's wise to make assumptions like this on
> behalf of foundation members, that they want to be removed unless they
> say otherwise.
>
> Plus there's always the chance that something screwy happens and they
> get removed against their will.  What if they're busy?  What if their
> email bounces?  There are contingencies, and I don't see a reason to
> invite Murphy's law into this.

Gentoo provides e-mail service to developers.  Bugzilla mail is single
most important kind of mail developers receive.  If they don't receive
Bugzilla mail for six months, then they're supposed to notice that.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny