| 1 |
forwarding and aliases ;) |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 11:52 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> Dnia 14 października 2016 06:37:07 CEST, Nick Vinson <nvinson234@×××××.com> |
| 6 |
> napisał(a): |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> >On 10/13/2016 06:06 PM, Matthew Thode wrote: |
| 10 |
> >> Some definitions |
| 11 |
> >> - All devs are staff |
| 12 |
> >> - All staff are foundation members |
| 13 |
> >> - All foundation members are staff |
| 14 |
> >> - All foundation members are voting |
| 15 |
> >> - You can be staff without being a dev (forum, bugs, irc) |
| 16 |
> >> - Foundation membership is automatically revoked if you miss two |
| 17 |
> >> Foundation elections (not sure if this needs to change) |
| 18 |
> >> |
| 19 |
> >> Proposal |
| 20 |
> >> - All prospective staff must apply to be Foundation members, allowing |
| 21 |
> >> for final approval by the trustees as is the current policy. Anyone |
| 22 |
> >not |
| 23 |
> >> accepted will not be given staff membership. |
| 24 |
> >> - Any Foundation membership granted as a result of a staff position |
| 25 |
> >is |
| 26 |
> >> lost when the position as staff is concluded. |
| 27 |
> >> - Any staff that is kicked or leaves during a ComRel incident may |
| 28 |
> >> appeal their incident with the appropriate body. They will either |
| 29 |
> >> retain or lose both staff and foundation membership simultaneously. |
| 30 |
> >> |
| 31 |
> >> Knock on effects |
| 32 |
> >> - May need to modify staff quiz. Developers already take this so |
| 33 |
> >will |
| 34 |
> >> automatically satisfy this requirement. Positive CoC acknowledgement |
| 35 |
> >> should be included in the staff quiz. |
| 36 |
> >> - By equating staff and Foundation membership we may have to change |
| 37 |
> >the |
| 38 |
> >> retirement criteria for staff. |
| 39 |
> >> - Staff will have to vote in Foundation elections. |
| 40 |
> >> - Staffers who are not devs do not belong to a project |
| 41 |
> >> - projects could be made |
| 42 |
> >> |
| 43 |
> >> Questions |
| 44 |
> >> - Do staff get gentoo.org email addresses? |
| 45 |
> >> - I do not think it’s necessary |
| 46 |
> >> (limits our liability (email addresses could be considered as |
| 47 |
> >loosing |
| 48 |
> >> property rights as mentioned elsewhere in one of these threads...), |
| 49 |
> >maybe) |
| 50 |
> > |
| 51 |
> >I don't think so (but not a lawyer). Otherwise, you wouldn't see |
| 52 |
> >companies assigning email addresses to their employees with the company |
| 53 |
> >domain. |
| 54 |
> > |
| 55 |
> >That said, it might be nice if you could use the email addresses to |
| 56 |
> >figure out who you're talking to at first glance. Something like: |
| 57 |
> > |
| 58 |
> >.staff.getnoo.org -- general staff member |
| 59 |
> >.dev.gentoo.org -- gentoo developer |
| 60 |
> >.trustee.gentoo.org -- gentoo trustee |
| 61 |
> >.councilor.gentoo.org -- gentoo council member |
| 62 |
> |
| 63 |
> And you suddenly invalidate the email on next election? |
| 64 |
> |
| 65 |
> > |
| 66 |
> >etc. |
| 67 |
> > |
| 68 |
> >Plese note that I'm not suggesting each project get its own subdomain. |
| 69 |
> >Just a few "key" top-level entities / groups inside Gentoo. |
| 70 |
> >> |
| 71 |
> |
| 72 |
> |
| 73 |
> -- |
| 74 |
> Best regards, |
| 75 |
> Michał Górny (by phone) |
| 76 |
> |
| 77 |
> |
Archives