Re: [gentoo-project] Foundation membership and who can join

[Matthew Thode]

On 10/14/2016 02:59 AM, Raymond Jennings wrote:
> Personally I think the only requirement for being a foundation member is
> agreement to adhere to the CoC, and proof of contribution and
> involvement.  I do not think the contribution bar should be very high,
> as anyone with a purple and green heart should be welcome as a
> foundation member in my opinion, and anyone who loves gentoo and can
> behave decently enough not to damage it should be welcome.
>
Ya, the staff quiz reasoning is just to make sure they know enough about
Gentoo and our policies to work well in the group.

> I also disagree that loss of membership in one should get you booted out
> of the other.   I will say, however, that if a person is forcibly
> removed from staff, the foundation's trustees should be notified.  If it
> was due to a CoC violation then there's a strong cause to have them
> removed as a foundation member.  If it was due to technical incompetence
> or due to breaking the tree one times too many, but they still can
> contribute in other ways, then no I don't think its proper to remove them.
>
The way it's suggested to work for devs is commit (dev) access can be
revoked by council, they'd still remain as staff (dev would basically be
a 'flag').

> Furthermore, I don't think we should limit gentoo project staff roles,
> or foundation membership, to developers.  There are plenty of people who
> care about Gentoo who aren't technically inclined enough to be developers.
>
> How about this:
>
> 1.  The baseline role is "Gentoo loyalist" of some sort
>
> To become a loyalist, you simply have to agree to the CoC.  This could
> even be an abstract social construct and only evaluated as needed.
>
> A CoC violation is punishable, and will cause the person's "loyal"
> status to be revoked or suspended.  This part *automatically* suspends
> or revokes any other official roles, be it foundation member, developer,
> or staff.
>
> 2.  Foundation member
>
> To become a foundation member, you must be in good standing wrt the CoC,
> and make enough of a contribution to Gentoo that the trustees see fit to
> recruit you as a foundation member.  The standard they will use to judge
> you is being passionate enough about gentoo to be helpful in some way.
>
> If you become "dead weight" or prove that you've lost your passion for
> gentoo, you get discharged as a member.
>
> 3.  Developer
>
> A developer is someone who has passed the ebuild quiz and demonstrated
> technical competence to where they can be trusted with direct access to
> the portage tree.
>
> Technical incompetence, breaking the tree, violating project protocols,
> and the like can get your dev status yanked either temporarily or
> permanently or indefinitely.
>
> 4.  Staff
>
> A staff is anyone with any kind of authority or management role within
> gentoo.  You must take and pass the staff quiz.
>
> Once you pass the staff quiz, you can be granted privileges on bugzilla,
> the forums, mailing lists, access to privileged resources on infra, etc.
>
> If you screw up, you can be destaffed.
>
> ----
>
> I think that developer, staff, and foundation member should be kept
> separately toggled by circumstance.  Only for a CoC violation should
> there be any sort of "cascade" reaction that gets you booted from
> multiple roles automatically.
>
> 5.  Council
>
> A council member is someone who has been
>
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o
> <mailto:rich0@g.o>> wrote:
>
>     On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 7:44 PM, NP-Hardass <NP-Hardass@g.o
>     <mailto:NP-Hardass@g.o>> wrote:
>     > The proposal does not make all members Gentoo staff.
>
>     Then, IMO, it isn't an improvement.  Certainly my intent was for it to
>     make all Foundation members Gentoo staff.
>
>     I think that all Foundation members should be staff, and all staff
>     should be Foundation members.  If somebody isn't qualified to be in
>     one, they shouldn't be in the other.  If somebody doesn't want to be
>     in one, they shouldn't be in the other.
>
>     I'm not suggesting that there should be some kind of onerous
>     requirement to be staff.
>
>     I think one of the biggest problems that you need to solve if you want
>     to try to reform the meta-structure is that we have multiple
>     constituencies right now.  My goal would be to fix that.  If somebody
>     isn't active enough to be considered staff, then they shouldn't be
>     voting on the governance of the distro.  If they're going to be voting
>     on governance, then they should be well-versed in how things work.
>
>     --
>     Rich
>
>

I'm not totally sure about this because the main reason for reforming
the metastructure is to have a unified electorate and management
structure.  As long as we can use that I think it may work.

-- 
-- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)