| 1 |
On 14/10/16 04:47 AM, Roy Bamford wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 2016.10.14 04:48, Matthew Thode wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 10/13/2016 10:33 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> |
| 5 |
>>>> On Oct 13, 2016, at 9:06 PM, Matthew Thode |
| 6 |
>> <prometheanfire@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
>>>> |
| 8 |
>>>> Some definitions |
| 9 |
>>>> - All devs are staff |
| 10 |
>>>> - All staff are foundation members |
| 11 |
>>>> - All foundation members are staff |
| 12 |
>>>> - All foundation members are voting |
| 13 |
>>>> - You can be staff without being a dev (forum, bugs, irc) |
| 14 |
>>>> - Foundation membership is automatically revoked if you miss two |
| 15 |
>>>> Foundation elections (not sure if this needs to change) |
| 16 |
>>>> |
| 17 |
>>> |
| 18 |
>>> So what happens, exactly, when a dev misses two elections? |
| 19 |
>>> |
| 20 |
>>> |
| 21 |
>> |
| 22 |
>> I'm not certain, I personally don't think that alone should be enough |
| 23 |
>> for retirement, but perhaps a probation for a year (til next election) |
| 24 |
>> then retirement if they don't vote again? |
| 25 |
>> |
| 26 |
>> -- |
| 27 |
>> -- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire) |
| 28 |
>> |
| 29 |
>> |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> Matthew, |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> Longer term, this doesn't change anything. I'll do a worked example |
| 34 |
> below, what am I missing? |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> May 2017, the above bylaw change is adopted by the Foundation |
| 37 |
> Jun - Aug 2017, first Trustee election including the enlarged |
| 38 |
> Foundation electorate. The number of devs casting a vote is |
| 39 |
> unchanged from prior years so the turnout goes down. |
| 40 |
> Longer standing members are pruned in accordance with the two |
| 41 |
> year rule. |
| 42 |
> Jul - Aug 2018 the process repeats. This time, most of the |
| 43 |
> (conscript) devs who became Foundation members in May 2017 |
| 44 |
> under the bylaw change are pruned and we are back to those |
| 45 |
> having an active interest. |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
> The problem is not so much the differing constituencies, long |
| 48 |
> term, that won't change. Its the numbers active in the differing |
| 49 |
> constituencies. |
| 50 |
> |
| 51 |
> This proposal doesn't really address that. It aligns the |
| 52 |
> constituencies in May 2017, in my example, and that's gone |
| 53 |
> by the end of Aug 2018, two elections later. |
| 54 |
> |
| 55 |
> How do you keep the constituencies aligned or does it really |
| 56 |
> not matter because only those interested will vote anyway. |
| 57 |
> Its not difficult for interested devs to become Foundation |
| 58 |
> members if they want to and the Foundation has always |
| 59 |
> advertised the recording date for Trustee elections in good |
| 60 |
> time to allow devs to join without missing the vote. |
| 61 |
> |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
The tricky technical part here that I worry about is the Gentoo Dev |
| 64 |
<-> Gentoo Staff assertion, and the hard |
| 65 |
staff-must-be-foundation-member and foundation-member-must-be-staff |
| 66 |
rules listed above. Loss of foundation membership seems that it must |
| 67 |
remove staff status by definition, but since dev's are staff simply |
| 68 |
because they're dev's, are they still a dev when they lose their staff |
| 69 |
status? |
| 70 |
|
| 71 |
Now, there may well be good reason to force the Dev<->Foundation |
| 72 |
member assumption. However I think the Dev<->Staff thing should |
| 73 |
probably be decoupled if one cannot be staff without being a |
| 74 |
foundation member. |
Archives