Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!
Bug 236863 - Tracker Bug for the bylaws of the Gentoo Foundation Inc.
Summary: Tracker Bug for the bylaws of the Gentoo Foundation Inc.
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Gentoo Linux
Classification: Unclassified
Component: [OLD] Unspecified (show other bugs)
Hardware: All Linux
: High normal (vote)
Assignee: Gentoo Board of Trustees
URL: http://www.gentoo.org/foundation/en/B...
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2008-09-06 14:27 UTC by Roy Bamford
Modified: 2008-11-16 19:37 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Package list:
Runtime testing required: ---


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Roy Bamford gentoo-dev 2008-09-06 14:27:05 UTC
The bylaws adopted on 31 Aug have a number of non urgent cosmetic errors. (They do not affect the meaning or intent of the bylaws) as well as a few areas where expansion and clarification are requited. 
This bug is to collect these things in one place with the intent of updating the bylaws before the Feb 2009 election 

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1.Read http://www.gentoo.org/foundation/en/BylawsAdopted.xml
2.Read this bug
3.Add to this bug




1. The bylaws were spell checked with a UK English spell checker, thats probably not right for a USA NPO.

2. Unused section numbers should be removed and cross references fixed or the unused sections should be consistently named ... e.g. Not Used, Reserved ....

3. Section states ... Section 4.3. Admission of Members

Full members are admitted by eligible Gentoo developers voting in a Trustee election. Eligible Gentoo developers are those that have been Gentoo developers for one year or more at the closing time for casting votes. The Gentoo join date being determined from the developers LDAP join date.  

Notice the ... voting in a Trustee election. The case where elections are not held because the number of candidates does not exceed the number of vacancies is not addressed and needs to be.

4.  If you see it, post a comment to the bug please
Comment 1 Ferris McCormick (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2008-09-14 18:54:16 UTC
For membership, we should relax the rules to allow membership for merit.  Specifically, I think that Gentoo developers who are performing services for the Foundation (PR, voting project, perhaps infra, and so on) should be eligible for membership regardless of other requirements.

Similarly, I think people performing services for the Foundation who are not gentoo developers should qualify for a staff developer position.

In both cases, I think it is a matter of showing recognition for services which a person is volunteering.
Comment 2 Christina Gianelloni (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2008-09-14 19:03:45 UTC
(In reply to comment #1)
> For membership, we should relax the rules to allow membership for merit. 

How about for those whose one year anniversary falls before the next election? I'd like to see a method to apply for membership rather than state that they are only eligible to become a member at the next election.

> Similarly, I think people performing services for the Foundation who are not
> gentoo developers should qualify for a staff developer position.

The majority of Dev Rel met on this topic and agreed that those performing services for the foundation as an Officer or Trustee were eligible to apply to become a Gentoo developer (need to pass usual staff recruitment) and so long as active in that role (or other roles) would be considered an active developer. We are updating documents to reflect this as staffer positions were not well documented previously. More information to come.
Comment 3 Ferris McCormick (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2008-09-14 19:06:18 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > For membership, we should relax the rules to allow membership for merit. 
> 
> How about for those whose one year anniversary falls before the next election?
> I'd like to see a method to apply for membership rather than state that they
> are only eligible to become a member at the next election.
> 

I'd agree to this.

> > Similarly, I think people performing services for the Foundation who are not
> > gentoo developers should qualify for a staff developer position.
> 
> The majority of Dev Rel met on this topic and agreed that those performing
> services for the foundation as an Officer or Trustee were eligible to apply to
> become a Gentoo developer (need to pass usual staff recruitment) and so long as
> active in that role (or other roles) would be considered an active developer.
> We are updating documents to reflect this as staffer positions were not well
> documented previously. More information to come.
> 

Comment 4 Ferris McCormick (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2008-09-14 20:42:34 UTC
Membership by petition for active developers:

Section 4.5  Membership for developers by petition.
  Active Gentoo developers who wish to become Foundation members but are not automatically members under section 4.3 may become members by petitioning the trustees for membership.
Comment 5 Ferris McCormick (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2008-09-15 00:51:22 UTC
(In reply to comment #4)
> Membership by petition for active developers:
> 
> Section 4.5  Membership for developers by petition.
>   Active Gentoo developers who wish to become Foundation members but are not
> automatically members under section 4.3 may become members by petitioning the
> trustees for membership.
> 

Let me restate this to actually say what I have in mind.  The idea behind this is that any active developer is eligible for membership in the foundation unless an absolute majority (3 out of 5) of the trustees oppose it.  (So, this is not a majority of a quorum.  Three trustees form a quorum, but 2 out of 3 may not block a membership by application.)

Section 4.5  Membership in the Foundation by Petition for Gentoo Developers.
  Active Gentoo developers who are not members of the Foundation may apply for membership.  Any developer applying for membership in the Foundation will become a member of the Foundation immediately after the next Trustee meeting following the application unless an absolute majority of the trustees (currently 3 out of 5) oppose membership for the developer at this meeting.
Comment 6 Ferris McCormick (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2008-09-15 14:16:30 UTC
Different topic.  Because the Chairman and Vice Chairman have duties specific to the operation of the Board of trustees, they should be trustees.  We have a handy deleted section for this, and I suggest something like:

6.3 Requirements for Chairman and Vice Chairman.
  The Chairman and Vice Chairman, if elected by the board, must be trustees.


(I could make it wordier, but don't see the point.)
Comment 7 Roy Bamford gentoo-dev 2008-09-15 19:28:14 UTC
(In reply to comment #4)
> Membership by petition for active developers:
> 
> Section 4.5  Membership for developers by petition.
>   Active Gentoo developers who wish to become Foundation members but are not
> automatically members under section 4.3 may become members by petitioning the
> trustees for membership.
> 
I would like to generalise this approach by opening up membership of the foundation on merit. Thus membership would not be confined to developers. Anyone with an interest in the activities of the Foundation who can demonstrate 'merit' would be able to apply for membership.

The term 'merit' is left deliberately ambiguious so it can be judged on a case by case basis. However, being a developer shows merit as the candidate has already been through the gentoo recruitment process. For developers, I support Ferriss' words in comment 5.

Allowing non developers to become members will eventually provide a larger pool of trustee candidates, which has to be good for the long term future of the foundation     
Comment 8 Łukasz Damentko (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2008-09-22 12:13:31 UTC
Just an idea I had earlier today.

I think every member should provide a declaration that he wishes to become/remain a member of the foundation (can be done via an online form or via e-mail, or both, doesn't matter really how, it only matter we have it).

People would provide some legal statement that they wish to be members of the foundation and to have rights to vote and so on. Also they would provide their current contact information with that declaration to solve our "can't contact half of people" problems. Doesn't have to include much more than their full name, e-mail address and GPG key. 

We could even oblige people to refile the declaration each year, maybe a month before we start election process? So we would have all the members verified and fresh right at the election time?

It also would be a good way of solving our another problem. People who are devs currently and who want to become members of the foundation but need more chances for that than election once every couple of years, could be made members by the board via this declaration formula.

I'm a good example of that second problem. Became a dev in the middle of 2005 so wasn't eligible to vote in 2006, in 2007 there was no election at all as we all know. So first date I could become a member was 2008 election. I became a member by filing a blank ballot file (didn't want to rank people in an election I was running (since I was an official then)).

I simply think we should give people more chances to join foundation roster than I got over those years I've been a dev.

What do you guys think?
Comment 9 Christina Gianelloni (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2008-09-22 13:28:01 UTC
(In reply to comment #8)
> We could even oblige people to refile the declaration each year

I like the idea of a periodic confirmation, ensuring we dont have an inflated list.

> It also would be a good way of solving our another problem. People who are 
> devs currently and who want to become members of the foundation but need more
> chances for that 

I still hold the opinion that there should be a way for someone to request membership when applicable (after 1st dev anniversary) and not have to wait for a specified annual time slot.
Comment 10 Richard Freeman gentoo-dev 2008-10-28 00:15:35 UTC
If those who are actively involved in foudation activites are eligible to become staff developers, and thus foundation members, is there any reason to allow volunteers to become foundation members without becoming staff developers?

I'm a little concerned with anything that could cause the constituencies of the foundation and council to drift apart - that could lead to unaligned goals and conflict.  If we keep the developer and foundation members as close as possible to each other then the interests of both bodies are naturally going to be aligned.  I think the unity of the distribution is critical and this is one way of promoting it.

Is becoming a staff developer a hardship?
Comment 11 Alec Warner (RETIRED) archtester gentoo-dev Security 2008-10-28 02:50:10 UTC
(In reply to comment #10)
> If those who are actively involved in foudation activites are eligible to
> become staff developers, and thus foundation members, is there any reason to
> allow volunteers to become foundation members without becoming staff
> developers?

Yeah, it means more work for our recruiting and undertaking groups.  If they don't want to become 'staff' that is their decision.

> 
> I'm a little concerned with anything that could cause the constituencies of the
> foundation and council to drift apart - that could lead to unaligned goals and
> conflict.  If we keep the developer and foundation members as close as possible
> to each other then the interests of both bodies are naturally going to be
> aligned.  I think the unity of the distribution is critical and this is one way
> of promoting it.

Except the foundation and the council by their very distinctive duties have different constituencies.

If you are concerned about some kind of takeover of the foundation we could adopt some kind of bylaw to address those concerns directly (certainly this is only one of many ways for there to be a conflict between council and trustees).

> 
> Is becoming a staff developer a hardship?
> 

Certainly there is a fixed cost (acquisition and training) and a recurring cost in keeping our ranks up to date (operational costs).  Plus staff members having to do whatever it is they need to do to retain their staff designation.
Comment 12 Richard Freeman gentoo-dev 2008-10-28 14:34:55 UTC
(In reply to comment #11)
> 
> If you are concerned about some kind of takeover of the foundation we could
> adopt some kind of bylaw to address those concerns directly (certainly this is
> only one of many ways for there to be a conflict between council and trustees).
> 

I'm not concerned about a takeover per-se (ie where 5000 people try to join the foundation to force some particular issue).  I'm more concerned that in 5 years the foundation has only 40-60% gentoo dev membership, and then the council makes a controversial decision backed by 80% of the devs and the foundation decides to tell the council to reverse the decision or they'll revoke dev access to infra servers and insist on the gentoo name not being used.  Obviously we'd like to think that such a situation wouldn't come up, but it starts becoming possible when the two organizations have different agendas.  If the membership of the two organizations is 95% identical it is unlikely for them to elect leaders who will disagree on anything serious.

I just don't want there to be two "gentoos" - and subsequent disagreements over which one is the "real" gentoo.
Comment 13 Ferris McCormick (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2008-10-28 15:32:03 UTC
Consider the case of our out of house lawyers (the Foundation has 4).  It might make sense for any of them to become members of the Foundation, but I suspect none of them has any interest in becoming a staff developer.  Foundation members are helping Gentoo by supporting the not-for-profit corporation (the Gentoo Foundation) organized to support the Gentoo open source project, and as Alec suggests, that is different from supporting the Gentoo project directly.

By the way, after the last election for trustees, the Foundation has 194 members.  Of these, 115 are developers and 79 are not (they are former developers), so right now, the developer:non-developer ratio for the Foundation members is roughly 59:41.
Comment 14 Ferris McCormick (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2008-10-28 15:35:21 UTC
(In reply to comment #13)
> Consider the case of our out of house lawyers (the Foundation has 4).  It might
> make sense for any of them to become members of the Foundation, but I suspect
> none of them has any interest in becoming a staff developer.  Foundation
> members are helping Gentoo by supporting the not-for-profit corporation (the
> Gentoo Foundation) organized to support the Gentoo open source project, and as
> Alec suggests, that is different from supporting the Gentoo project directly.
> 
> By the way, after the last election for trustees, the Foundation has 194
> members.  Of these, 115 are developers and 79 are not (they are former
> developers), so right now, the developer:non-developer ratio for the Foundation
> members is roughly 59:41.
> 

Er, 59% developers, 41% non-developers.  Sorry for the confusion.
Comment 15 Richard Freeman gentoo-dev 2008-10-28 19:18:03 UTC
Would a cap on non-dev members make sense (say 30%)? Obviously that creates issues with the current situation.  Should members need to do something to stay in good standing?  If a dev is booted for some reason should they remain a foundation member?  

I think that members should have some stake in the orgnaization.  Devs at least have to do something to remain devs (in theory).  I don't think we want a situation where lots of people who have had nothing to do with gentoo for some time have a significant voice.  Also - at some point talk is cheap - do we want people who aren't doing the work having oversight over those now are?  That could lead to a split, which would be a mess.

I don't want to be the lone voice of dissent here - if nobody else thinks that a divergence in membership is a potential long-term problem by all means carry on.  I just fear that this could lead to a break between gentoo the software and gentoo the name.
Comment 16 Ferris McCormick (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2008-10-28 19:31:03 UTC
1.  See Section 4.4 of the Bylaws --- members have to vote in elections for trustee to remain members.

2.  Misprint in 4.4:  This ---
Full members who remain Gentoo developers shall have there membership
Needs to be this:
Full members who remain Gentoo developers shall have their membership

If a Foundation member who is a developer is involuntarily removed from the Gentoo project, that person remains a Foundation member.  However, see Section 4.9 --- the Trustees may remove a member for actions hostile to the purpose of the Foundation.  Most developers who are involuntarily retired are retired for inactivity, which really has nothing to say about whether or not they are still contributing to the Foundation.
Comment 17 Ferris McCormick (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2008-11-04 15:20:48 UTC
just a quick verification for bugzilla --- please ignore
Comment 18 Matt Summers (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2008-11-04 15:31:27 UTC
at fmccor's request, I make this post. please disregard.
Comment 19 Roy Bamford gentoo-dev 2008-11-16 19:37:42 UTC
Closed by the adoption of new bylaws at Nove 16 meeting