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

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 5:47 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:

> W dniu pon, 04.06.2018 o godzinie 01∶47 +0000, użytkownik Jorge Manuel
> B. S. Vicetto napisał:
> > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 6:35 PM, 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.
> > >
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > I strongly disagree with this proposal.
>
> I think you're making far reaching conclusions without any real
> arguments backing them.
>

Michał,

we disagree on this proposal, that's ok. I'm expressing an opinion, just as
you expressed yours. There's no need to question others opinion.



> > Not only do I feel we shouldn't remove people from the Foundation just
> > because they retire, as I also feel the Foundation would benefit from
> > having past developers more involved.
>
> Keeping inactive members on the member list does not imply they get
> involved.  It only means that Foundation member count is inflated,
> and as we've already seen that affects the constant problem of reaching
> quorum and low participation in elections.  Artificially prolonging
> membership of inactive people is simply unfair to people who actually
> want to participate, if not hostile to the goals of the Foundation
> (after all, having a lot of inactive members is an easy way to paralyze
> the active members).
>

The same way that someone being a member of the Foundation doesn't imply he
or she is active. You feel it's "unfair", I argue it's "unfair" to
forcefully retire someone from the Foundation just because that person
retired from Gentoo.
As I stated before, we already have rules to "retire" inactive members, so
I think there's no need to create special rules for developers that retire.
Another motive for my opposition, is beyond your concrete proposal, the
talk / discussion about requiring members to be Gentoo Developers (which
your proposal would help to ensure).


> > About the arguments regarding quorum or ability to contact past
> developers
> > by email for elections, I recall that elections are announced on public
> ml
> > and thus a past developer without a forwarding email could still be aware
> > of an election and act on that. If they don't act or care any more about
> > the Foundation, we already have the rule that it takes 2 elections
> without
> > participation to ensure they'll get retired.
>
> Please tell me, honestly.  How likely is it that:
>
> a. a developer who explicitly requests retirement and is asked whether
> he would like to stay in the Foundation would not answer that
> and at the same time want to stay in the Foundation?
>
> b. a developer who is retired after >6 months of complete inactivity (of
> even answering the bug or three mails sent by Undertakers) and being
> explicitly aware that his Foundation membership would be revoked
> as a result, would not decide to inform the Foundation of his will to
> stay but at the same time continue participating in Foundation affairs?
>
> Foundation membership is voluntary, and explicit.  I don't really
> understand why some people want to keep members in by force when they
> clearly don't participate, or keep the member list inflated for a year
> or two just in case.
>

To me it isn't a question of likelihood, but of possibility and what type
of Foundation we want to have.
I don't object to the Undertakers asking a retiring developer is he wishes
to retire from the Foundation. But if the developer doesn't answer or if he
doesn't reply to the retirement, let the retirement of the Foundation
follow existing rules.
I would personally like to see former developers more involved in the
Foundation. Those that still care about Gentoo could provide insightful
feedback about community issues.


>
> --
> Best regards,
> Michał Górny
>


Best regards,
Jorge