| 1 |
On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 4:34 PM, Daniel Robbins <drobbins@××××××.org> wrote: |
| 2 |
> I think the "rules" as it stands give the trustees the ability to remove any |
| 3 |
> member that they feel is disruptive or not good for the project. They don't |
| 4 |
> need to provide a reason or justification. It is at their discretion. So |
| 5 |
> disruptive people can be removed. If I am misunderstanding this, let me |
| 6 |
> know. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Indeed, I'd even go further and simplify the bylaw to say: |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Section 4.9. Termination from Membership. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Membership may be terminated by a majority vote of the board of trustees. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
And just leave it at that. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
If you're concerned about somebody threatening to sue, then it is |
| 17 |
probably better to NOT give them a reason for dismissal, unless |
| 18 |
specifically required to do so by law. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
If the law doesn't require a reason, and you don't give a reason, then |
| 21 |
they don't really have much ground for argument. If you do give a |
| 22 |
reason, you've now given them something to argue with when there was |
| 23 |
no need to do so. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
IMO a better defense against Gentoo volunteers being sued is to join |
| 26 |
an umbrella that is actually equipped to handle these situations, and |
| 27 |
which will probably be less likely to give people grounds to sue, |
| 28 |
especially since they would no longer have standing as members to do |
| 29 |
so. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
And keep in mind that kicking somebody out doesn't really diminish |
| 32 |
their standing to sue, since they can potentially sue based on actions |
| 33 |
taken while they were a member, and the loss of membership becomes one |
| 34 |
more cause for action. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Rich |
Archives