| 1 |
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 9:13 AM Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On Fri, 2019-09-06 at 05:11 -0700, Raymond Jennings wrote: |
| 4 |
> > Considering that the undertakers attempted recently to involuntarily retire |
| 5 |
> > a developer in spite of said developer's objection, and that said motion |
| 6 |
> > was only stopped by direct intervention from the council, I believe I have |
| 7 |
> > a good reason to advocate caution in regards to social procedures. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> This is not only an off-topic but also a blatant lie. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Either way I think it is irrelevant. Consider the possibilities: |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
* If they objected to being booted out and undertakers relented, that |
| 14 |
is fair due process. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
* If they objected to being booted out, appealed to council, and |
| 17 |
council reversed the decision, that is fair due process. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
* If they objected to being booted out, appealed to council, and |
| 20 |
council allowed them to be booted, that is STILL fair due process. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Being a Foundation Member isn't some kind of human right. It makes |
| 23 |
sense to limit membership to people who have an ACTIVE interest in the |
| 24 |
affairs of the distro. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Sure, at some point there will be cases where somebody argues a dev is |
| 27 |
active enough and others argue they aren't. Boundary conditions will |
| 28 |
always exist. They won't be adjudicated perfectly. However, I trust |
| 29 |
that people will generally make the right decision and if something is |
| 30 |
borderline enough that there was reason to have doubt, then it |
| 31 |
shouldn't be so controversial. When we start seeing undertakers boot |
| 32 |
people who have 10 commits per week, or who have 20 bug comments per |
| 33 |
week, or who send out 2 GLSAs per week, or publish a bunch of PR |
| 34 |
stuff, or moderate 30 forum posts, and so on... Well, then we'll have |
| 35 |
reasons to be concerned. We're splitting hairs about whether somebody |
| 36 |
who has 3 commits a decade is or isn't active enough and using this as |
| 37 |
a reason to maintain bylaws that might not make sense with voting |
| 38 |
improvements. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Personally I like the status quo, but I can't really object to some of |
| 41 |
the proposed improvements in the security/anonymity of voting, and |
| 42 |
those will probably necessitate changing how we count Foundation |
| 43 |
activity. Unless, that is, we just keep voting using the present |
| 44 |
method or consider secret ballot less important. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
-- |
| 47 |
Rich |
Archives