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 |