Re: [gentoo-nfp] [RFC] Alternative methods for determining 'interest in Foundation affairs'

[Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>]

On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 9:13 AM Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2019-09-06 at 05:11 -0700, Raymond Jennings wrote:
> > Considering that the undertakers attempted recently to involuntarily retire
> > a developer in spite of said developer's objection, and that said motion
> > was only stopped by direct intervention from the council, I believe I have
> > a good reason to advocate caution in regards to social procedures.
>
> This is not only an off-topic but also a blatant lie.

Either way I think it is irrelevant.  Consider the possibilities:

* If they objected to being booted out and undertakers relented, that
is fair due process.

* If they objected to being booted out, appealed to council, and
council reversed the decision, that is fair due process.

* If they objected to being booted out, appealed to council, and
council allowed them to be booted, that is STILL fair due process.

Being a Foundation Member isn't some kind of human right.  It makes
sense to limit membership to people who have an ACTIVE interest in the
affairs of the distro.

Sure, at some point there will be cases where somebody argues a dev is
active enough and others argue they aren't.  Boundary conditions will
always exist.  They won't be adjudicated perfectly.  However, I trust
that people will generally make the right decision and if something is
borderline enough that there was reason to have doubt, then it
shouldn't be so controversial.  When we start seeing undertakers boot
people who have 10 commits per week, or who have 20 bug comments per
week, or who send out 2 GLSAs per week, or publish a bunch of PR
stuff, or moderate 30 forum posts, and so on...  Well, then we'll have
reasons to be concerned.  We're splitting hairs about whether somebody
who has 3 commits a decade is or isn't active enough and using this as
a reason to maintain bylaws that might not make sense with voting
improvements.

Personally I like the status quo, but I can't really object to some of
the proposed improvements in the security/anonymity of voting, and
those will probably necessitate changing how we count Foundation
activity.  Unless, that is, we just keep voting using the present
method or consider secret ballot less important.

-- 
Rich