| 1 |
W dniu pon, 04.06.2018 o godzinie 01∶47 +0000, użytkownik Jorge Manuel |
| 2 |
B. S. Vicetto napisał: |
| 3 |
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 6:35 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > Hello, |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > As my second Bylaws change proposal, I would like to integrate |
| 8 |
> > Foundation membership closer with our retirement procedures. I would |
| 9 |
> > like the retired developers to be removed from Foundation by default, |
| 10 |
> > unless they explicitly ask to stay. That way, we won't have to 'clean |
| 11 |
> > up' inactive developers twice. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> <snip> |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> I strongly disagree with this proposal. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I think you're making far reaching conclusions without any real |
| 19 |
arguments backing them. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> Not only do I feel we shouldn't remove people from the Foundation just |
| 22 |
> because they retire, as I also feel the Foundation would benefit from |
| 23 |
> having past developers more involved. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Keeping inactive members on the member list does not imply they get |
| 26 |
involved. It only means that Foundation member count is inflated, |
| 27 |
and as we've already seen that affects the constant problem of reaching |
| 28 |
quorum and low participation in elections. Artificially prolonging |
| 29 |
membership of inactive people is simply unfair to people who actually |
| 30 |
want to participate, if not hostile to the goals of the Foundation |
| 31 |
(after all, having a lot of inactive members is an easy way to paralyze |
| 32 |
the active members). |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
> About the arguments regarding quorum or ability to contact past developers |
| 35 |
> by email for elections, I recall that elections are announced on public ml |
| 36 |
> and thus a past developer without a forwarding email could still be aware |
| 37 |
> of an election and act on that. If they don't act or care any more about |
| 38 |
> the Foundation, we already have the rule that it takes 2 elections without |
| 39 |
> participation to ensure they'll get retired. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Please tell me, honestly. How likely is it that: |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
a. a developer who explicitly requests retirement and is asked whether |
| 44 |
he would like to stay in the Foundation would not answer that |
| 45 |
and at the same time want to stay in the Foundation? |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
b. a developer who is retired after >6 months of complete inactivity (of |
| 48 |
even answering the bug or three mails sent by Undertakers) and being |
| 49 |
explicitly aware that his Foundation membership would be revoked |
| 50 |
as a result, would not decide to inform the Foundation of his will to |
| 51 |
stay but at the same time continue participating in Foundation affairs? |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
Foundation membership is voluntary, and explicit. I don't really |
| 54 |
understand why some people want to keep members in by force when they |
| 55 |
clearly don't participate, or keep the member list inflated for a year |
| 56 |
or two just in case. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
-- |
| 59 |
Best regards, |
| 60 |
Michał Górny |
Archives