| 1 |
On 14/10/16 10:35 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 14/10/16 08:43 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> |
| 5 |
>>> [...] two different pools of voters (Foundation members and |
| 6 |
>>> "Developers" (which today includes anybody with an @g.o address even |
| 7 |
>>> if they don't have commit access - the proposal splits that into Staff |
| 8 |
>>> and Developers) |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> By definition #1, if you're a dev then you're staff; staff is a |
| 12 |
>> superset of dev but there's no separation there based on the |
| 13 |
>> definitions listed. There needs to be a classification for |
| 14 |
>> non-staff-dev if a dev loses foundation membership due to the |
| 15 |
>> staff<->foundation hard coupling and whatever rules there are that |
| 16 |
>> revokes foundation membership and therefore staff status, but can |
| 17 |
>> still remain a dev. |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
>> OR, don't couple dev to staff so that devs have a different (sub)set |
| 20 |
>> of rules regarding foundation membership revocation. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> My intent is that anybody who ceases to be a Foundation member also |
| 23 |
> loses membership in staff, dev, and loses commit access. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Again, the point is to keep Foundation membership strictly in-line |
| 26 |
> with what are currently today developers. This means that the same |
| 27 |
> people who vote for Council also vote for the Trustees. (Today staff |
| 28 |
> are also considered developers and do vote for the Council.) |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Excellent. *THIS* makes things very clear. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Now, I forsee there being some push-back from a dev losing their |
| 34 |
gentoo-repo commit rights if they abstain from voting in two |
| 35 |
(consecutive?) Foundation elections....but that's a separate issue |
| 36 |
that can be addressed on its own. |
Archives