| 1 |
Personally I think the only requirement for being a foundation member is |
| 2 |
agreement to adhere to the CoC, and proof of contribution and involvement. |
| 3 |
I do not think the contribution bar should be very high, as anyone with a |
| 4 |
purple and green heart should be welcome as a foundation member in my |
| 5 |
opinion, and anyone who loves gentoo and can behave decently enough not to |
| 6 |
damage it should be welcome. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
I also disagree that loss of membership in one should get you booted out of |
| 9 |
the other. I will say, however, that if a person is forcibly removed from |
| 10 |
staff, the foundation's trustees should be notified. If it was due to a |
| 11 |
CoC violation then there's a strong cause to have them removed as a |
| 12 |
foundation member. If it was due to technical incompetence or due to |
| 13 |
breaking the tree one times too many, but they still can contribute in |
| 14 |
other ways, then no I don't think its proper to remove them. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Furthermore, I don't think we should limit gentoo project staff roles, or |
| 17 |
foundation membership, to developers. There are plenty of people who care |
| 18 |
about Gentoo who aren't technically inclined enough to be developers. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
How about this: |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
1. The baseline role is "Gentoo loyalist" of some sort |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
To become a loyalist, you simply have to agree to the CoC. This could even |
| 25 |
be an abstract social construct and only evaluated as needed. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
A CoC violation is punishable, and will cause the person's "loyal" status |
| 28 |
to be revoked or suspended. This part *automatically* suspends or revokes |
| 29 |
any other official roles, be it foundation member, developer, or staff. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
2. Foundation member |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
To become a foundation member, you must be in good standing wrt the CoC, |
| 34 |
and make enough of a contribution to Gentoo that the trustees see fit to |
| 35 |
recruit you as a foundation member. The standard they will use to judge |
| 36 |
you is being passionate enough about gentoo to be helpful in some way. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
If you become "dead weight" or prove that you've lost your passion for |
| 39 |
gentoo, you get discharged as a member. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
3. Developer |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
A developer is someone who has passed the ebuild quiz and demonstrated |
| 44 |
technical competence to where they can be trusted with direct access to the |
| 45 |
portage tree. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
Technical incompetence, breaking the tree, violating project protocols, and |
| 48 |
the like can get your dev status yanked either temporarily or permanently |
| 49 |
or indefinitely. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
4. Staff |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
A staff is anyone with any kind of authority or management role within |
| 54 |
gentoo. You must take and pass the staff quiz. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
Once you pass the staff quiz, you can be granted privileges on bugzilla, |
| 57 |
the forums, mailing lists, access to privileged resources on infra, etc. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
If you screw up, you can be destaffed. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
---- |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
I think that developer, staff, and foundation member should be kept |
| 64 |
separately toggled by circumstance. Only for a CoC violation should there |
| 65 |
be any sort of "cascade" reaction that gets you booted from multiple roles |
| 66 |
automatically. |
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
5. Council |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
A council member is someone who has been |
| 71 |
|
| 72 |
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 73 |
|
| 74 |
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 7:44 PM, NP-Hardass <NP-Hardass@g.o> wrote: |
| 75 |
> > The proposal does not make all members Gentoo staff. |
| 76 |
> |
| 77 |
> Then, IMO, it isn't an improvement. Certainly my intent was for it to |
| 78 |
> make all Foundation members Gentoo staff. |
| 79 |
> |
| 80 |
> I think that all Foundation members should be staff, and all staff |
| 81 |
> should be Foundation members. If somebody isn't qualified to be in |
| 82 |
> one, they shouldn't be in the other. If somebody doesn't want to be |
| 83 |
> in one, they shouldn't be in the other. |
| 84 |
> |
| 85 |
> I'm not suggesting that there should be some kind of onerous |
| 86 |
> requirement to be staff. |
| 87 |
> |
| 88 |
> I think one of the biggest problems that you need to solve if you want |
| 89 |
> to try to reform the meta-structure is that we have multiple |
| 90 |
> constituencies right now. My goal would be to fix that. If somebody |
| 91 |
> isn't active enough to be considered staff, then they shouldn't be |
| 92 |
> voting on the governance of the distro. If they're going to be voting |
| 93 |
> on governance, then they should be well-versed in how things work. |
| 94 |
> |
| 95 |
> -- |
| 96 |
> Rich |
| 97 |
> |
Archives