Created attachment 562924 [details, diff] Update on how members are admitted, and continue to show affirmation of membership This is a proposal to change the bylaws to change how members are admitted (what admission requirements are) as well as how members continue to show affirmation of membership. Please review and vote aye or nay. Thanks, -A
I vote aye
Foundation is a way to have people interested in helping Gentoo, also if they have different skills and background(for example lawyer). Such work is sometime difficult to be quantified. For example non-technical contributors that are participating in the mailing list or forum. I vote nay
I'm not sure as to the purpose of this change.
I vote yay on the condition that the few spelling errors be fixed. Will prepare patch when not mobile.
my question is if each trustee needs to state what factor they deemed as 'good' for them to become a member or not
-Criteria for loss of interest in the foundation shall be determined by the trustees, from time to time. +Loss of interest in the foundation shall be signalled by failure to return a ballot in two successive Trustee elections. That does clarify the primary means of removal, but is still a material change to the rule. Limiting our powers to remove poisonous members is not something I support, though 4.9 may still work for it. All the other lines read as more inclusive and good to me though. Still not voting yet.
Marking Aaron as yay (pending spelling fixes.)
I vote nay, this can be redrafted with the questions I asked clarified in the text.
It's interesting how people ask question in some obscure bug without caring to actually inform me (as the submitter) in any way that they have questions. (In reply to Alice Ferrazzi from comment #2) > Foundation is a way to have people interested in helping Gentoo, also if > they have different skills and background(for example lawyer). > Such work is sometime difficult to be quantified. > For example non-technical contributors that are participating in the mailing > list or forum. This doesn't change. The whole list is unchanged, except for adding an additional position of 'being a Gentoo developer', which is moved from separate paragraph above. (In reply to Matthew Thode ( prometheanfire ) from comment #3) > I'm not sure as to the purpose of this change. The purpose is to provide unified rules for devs and non-devs. It was discussed on the mailing lists back in June last year, and the changes apply requests from Trustees. Namely: 1. The current text only details the process for devs, and not for non-devs. The change replaces that with a single process that is same for everyone. 2. As a result, 'being a Gentoo developer' is made into one of possible conditions for accepting a membership, rather than a completely separate process. 3. The rules for removing inactive members are unified to be the same for developers and non-developers. The previous wording indicated that developers will remain members if they do nothing, retired devs are removed on inactivity, and non-devs aren't removed at all. 4. The rule for determining inactivity is put transparently to increase trust and prevent abuse. (In reply to Matthew Thode ( prometheanfire ) from comment #6) > -Criteria for loss of interest in the foundation shall be determined by the > trustees, from time to time. > +Loss of interest in the foundation shall be signalled by failure to return > a ballot in two successive Trustee elections. > > That does clarify the primary means of removal, but is still a material > change to the rule. Limiting our powers to remove poisonous members is not > something I support, though 4.9 may still work for it. Inactivity removal is not supposed to handle 'poisonous members'. This is precisely what 4.9 is for.
Nay
