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

[Raymond Jennings]

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 7:13 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote:

> On 14/10/16 10:04 AM, Raymond Jennings wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 6:55 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o
> > <mailto:axs@g.o>> wrote:
> >
> >     On 14/10/16 09:46 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> >     > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Raymond Jennings <
> shentino@×××××.com <mailto:shentino@×××××.com>> wrote:
> >     >> That's why I made my own proposal.
> >     >>
> >     >> class supporter
> >     >
> >     > If you change supporter to always be a foundation member (ie make
> >     > membership activation/removal simultaneous with instantiation) it
> >     > could work.  However, I still question the need for a 3rd tier.
> >
> >     My C++ is a little rusty but if I'm reading it right, all the
> >     'supporter' class does is provide a container of inheritance that (a)
> >     allows you to revoke everything when someone stops being a supporter
> >     (or stops agreeing to the COC), and (b) allows the separation of
> >     foundation-member from the dev and staff classes.  It also seems to
> >     allow there to be foundation members that are neither staff nor
> dev's.
> >
> >
> > Exactly.
> >
> >     So it's not a class that would be instantiated in and of itself I
> >     don't think.
> >
> >
> > It is an abstract virtual base class...virtual because we could well
> > have supporters who are staff AND dev, but we'd only need to check
> > their supporter credietnails (coc compliance etc) once.
> >
> >
>
> AND, the important bit, separates foundation membership from both
> classes; right?
>

yes.  foundation membership in my illustration is intended to be separate
froms taff and dev roles...but if you screw up as a supporter, you blow all
three.