Re: [gentoo-project] RFC: Expanding Foundation Bylaws, section 4.9 Termination from Membership

[zlg <zlg@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1998 bytes --]

On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 09:04:19AM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, 9 Feb 2018, Daniel Robbins wrote:
> 
> [Please don't top-post.]
> 
> > You are using hyperbole. A majority vote of trustees is required.
> > That is not haphazard, as you state -- it is a process that requires
> > majority consensus of elected officials. We assume that the trustees
> > are looking out for the project. The trustees are there to protect
> > the community so they must have this ability.
> 
> I don't disagree with this. Still, trustees should not be able to
> exclude a member without a reason, and they should communicate that
> reason (not necessarily in public, but at least to the excluded
> member).
> 
> Ulrich

From what I've seen, a common approach to conflict resolution is via the
bug-tracker, or e-mails to comrel. These create 'paper trails' for us,
so I don't think that's much of a problem in terms of discovery. The
Trustees could suggest that official channels be used before petitioning
them for a decision on Foundation membership. They are not required to
do so, but I agree that knowing the reason is helpful. And instead of
the reasoning being some sort of rationale, it should be something
grounded in fact and fact alone:

"You did X, which we have communicated results in Y. Z person went
through our official channels and those channels failed to resolve the
situation. Thus, the Trustees are taking action to protect the
Foundation and community. You may re-apply for Foundation membership on
[date]."

Anything less is favoritism or double-standard. If we cannot enforce our
guidelines evenly, then we lack credibility and don't deserve to be
taken seriously.

Enforcement is made difficult because we allow our decisions to be
impacted by the social status of the person who is being claimed
against. Others see this, and it reduces our reputation.

Short, fact-oriented messaging I think is the way to go for enforcement.

~zlg

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]