Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvicetto@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-nfp] Proposal for Trustees: Reflect CoC in Bylaws
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2015 13:35:16
Message-Id: alpine.LNX.2.00.1504261328300.31927@woodpecker.gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-nfp] Proposal for Trustees: Reflect CoC in Bylaws by Rich Freeman
1 On Sun, 26 Apr 2015, Rich Freeman wrote:
2
3 > On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 4:09 AM, Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> wrote:
4 >>
5 >> The existing bylaw only affords membership termination in the event where a
6 >> member acts contrary to the purposes of the foundation. If you expect comrel
7 >> to recommend revocation of membership due to CoC violations then I would
8 >> prefer this power be granted to the trustees in a more explicit manner than
9 >> the current wording.
10 >
11 > A simpler solution might be to restrict foundation membership to
12 > active developers/staff, and revoke membership once somebody is no
13 > longer an active developer/staff.
14
15 Richard,
16
17 the problem I see with that is that two of the goals of the Foundation are
18 the expansion of the Gentoo Community as well as the collaboration between
19 all members of the "Eco system".
20 If we were to "close" membership, we would be throwing out the above
21 goals. Further, trying to terminate the membership of non-developers, if
22 we were to close membership, in my view, would violate the existing rules.
23
24 > This also solves the double-constituency problem where you end up with
25 > two governing bodies with different constituencies, where conflict
26 > between them is fairly likely to be destructive to the organization.
27
28 This can cause issues, but it's also a way to allow active and
29 representative members of the Community that aren't Developers to
30 participate and contribute to Gentoo.
31
32
33 Regards,
34 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
35 Gentoo Developer / Foundation member

Replies