[gentoo-project] Foundation membership and who can join

[gentoo-project] Foundation membership and who can join

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1253 bytes --]

Current bylaws state that to become a member you need to petition the
trustees for membership to the foundation.  What verification is done by
trustees is up in the air.  Members also seem to be members for life
unless they remove themselves are are removed by a vote of the trustees.

I suggest we use and/or modify the existing staff quiz for use as a
guide for who to admit, as 'graded' by trustees.  I also suggest that
some for of positive acknowledgement that they will adhere to the CoC
would be helpful as well.

Now, some have floated the idea that the foundation membership is
somewhat defunct, and that may be the case.  Personally I think it
should be reaffirmed each year (or some other time period that is agreed
upon).  But to 'clean' it up I think we should ask the existing members
to at least agree to the CoC, and possibly also be staff.

It's also been suggested that the foundation (active) membership is
waning, so once / if we decide on an update to the membership policy I
think we should mail the lists petitioning for memebers (-dev -project
and maybe some others)

The above would be an update to the bylaws and I want feedback before I
propose it as an update.

-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

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

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1811 bytes --]

On 10/13/2016 11:35 AM, Matthew Thode wrote:
> Current bylaws state that to become a member you need to petition the
> trustees for membership to the foundation.  What verification is done by
> trustees is up in the air.  Members also seem to be members for life
> unless they remove themselves are are removed by a vote of the trustees.
> 
> I suggest we use and/or modify the existing staff quiz for use as a
> guide for who to admit, as 'graded' by trustees.  I also suggest that
> some for of positive acknowledgement that they will adhere to the CoC
> would be helpful as well.
> 
> Now, some have floated the idea that the foundation membership is
> somewhat defunct, and that may be the case.  Personally I think it
> should be reaffirmed each year (or some other time period that is agreed
> upon).  But to 'clean' it up I think we should ask the existing members
> to at least agree to the CoC, and possibly also be staff.
> 
> It's also been suggested that the foundation (active) membership is
> waning, so once / if we decide on an update to the membership policy I
> think we should mail the lists petitioning for memebers (-dev -project
> and maybe some others)
> 
> The above would be an update to the bylaws and I want feedback before I
> propose it as an update.
> 

I've opened this up for comments (and slightly updated it) because email
is a horrible form for document editing.

Also, this is _MY_ working document, if tangents come off it it in the
comments that _I_ don't see as useful they will be removed.  Don't get
mad if I don't take your change as this is my proposal.  If you disagree
go make your own :P

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1a4s20RMG9DxfMAKxS7VQb5-Dmb64IFIYBXbYtSkyiwk/edit?usp=sharing

-- 
-- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

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

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2344 bytes --]

On Thursday, October 13, 2016 11:35:42 AM EDT Matthew Thode wrote:
> Current bylaws state that to become a member you need to petition the
> trustees for membership to the foundation.  What verification is done by
> trustees is up in the air.  Members also seem to be members for life
> unless they remove themselves are are removed by a vote of the trustees.

It is not in the current By Laws.

I seem to recall there were provision stating you remain a member as long as 
you actively vote. If you do not vote after some period you can lose your 
membership via means of forfeit or something to that effect.

I cannot find a link to it in the Gentoo archives, but my memory is correct. 
See forwarded message below. I guess this never made it into the adopted by 
laws. They should likely be amended.

The rationale was if you are not voting after a period of time. You obviously 
lost interest, and thus membership. You could always re-apply to be a member 
of the foundation if removed due to inactivity/non-voting.

----------  Forwarded Message  ----------

Subject: Re: [gentoo-nfp] Bylaws question - 4.4 Continuation of membership: 
Loss of interest
Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2008, 11:26:27 PM EDT
From: Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@gentoo.org>
To: Robin H. Johnson <robbat2@gentoo.org>
CC: gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org

On 2008.09.03 00:12, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> Per the adopted bylaws:
> > Section 4.4. Continuation of Membership
> ...
> > Loss of interest in the foundation shall be signalled by failure to
> > return a ballot in two successive Trustee elections
>
> Is this retroactive on all previous foundations members that have not
> voted in the last two Trustee elections?
>
> --
> Robin Hugh Johnson
> Gentoo Linux Developer & Infra Guy
> E-Mail     : robbat2@gentoo.org
> GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85
>
Robin,

No. They are 'Grandfathered' it applies to elections going forward.
We had to have something to remove inactive members, or eventually,
members meetings could never become quorate.

The first reduction in membership under this rule will occur following
the Feb. 2010 elections, thats two elections from now.

--
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(NeddySeagoon) a member of
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
treecleaners
trustees

-----------------------------------------

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 163 bytes --]

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

[Alec Warner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2316 bytes --]

On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@gentoo.org>
wrote:

> Current bylaws state that to become a member you need to petition the
> trustees for membership to the foundation.  What verification is done by
> trustees is up in the air.  Members also seem to be members for life
> unless they remove themselves are are removed by a vote of the trustees.


> I suggest we use and/or modify the existing staff quiz for use as a
> guide for who to admit, as 'graded' by trustees.  I also suggest that
> some for of positive acknowledgement that they will adhere to the CoC
> would be helpful as well.


I wouldn't use the term graded. Just add a requirement that they must have
passed the staff quiz, with a grandfather clause for existing members.

The CoC thing sounds fine, provided that you are willing to enforce it
(e.g. by terminated the membership of violators.) Exercise due care in how
this bylaw is worded.


>
> Now, some have floated the idea that the foundation membership is
> somewhat defunct, and that may be the case.  Personally I think it
> should be reaffirmed each year (or some other time period that is agreed
> upon).  But to 'clean' it up I think we should ask the existing members
> to at least agree to the CoC, and possibly also be staff.
>

I do not want to bifurcate (or trifurcate) the structure.

The community has 3 types of members:

1) Foundation members
2) Developers
3) Users

All three agree to the CoC implicitly by being a member of the community.
It would be agreeable to me to see more wording added to the bylaws that
members who violate the community guidelines could have the membership
revoked (in addition to any comrel action.) Again, careful on the wording
of such bylaws.


>
> It's also been suggested that the foundation (active) membership is
> waning, so once / if we decide on an update to the membership policy I
> think we should mail the lists petitioning for memebers (-dev -project
> and maybe some others)
>

I'm not going to recruit based on "suggestion." Either we have the data on
members or we don't. If we do, present it. If we don't, we should probably
get some data before acting.


> The above would be an update to the bylaws and I want feedback before I
> propose it as an update.
>
> --
> Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3489 bytes --]

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

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1181 bytes --]

On Thursday, October 13, 2016 10:39:17 AM EDT Alec Warner wrote:
>
> The community has 3 types of members:
> 
> 1) Foundation members
> 2) Developers
> 3) Users

Really should just be 2, Developers and Users. Both can be foundation members. 

It does not makes sense to have Foundation members who are neither a developer 
or user. What interest would it be of theirs and why should they have say is 
something they do not use or contribute to?

Developers  and staff should not have to apply for membership. They should 
automatically be members as part of being a developer or staff member. It 
should only be users and/or outsiders, companies, that apply for membership. 
This may need to be modified.

https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/
Foundation:Bylaws#Section_4.3._Admission_of_Members

That does not mean developers have to be active or part of the foundation, 
vote or otherwise, just automatic membership. Rather than automatic exclusion 
and having to apply to be a member despite vested interest via contributions.



Original post to 2 lists. I am subscribed to 1 -project, not going to re-
subscribe to -nfp likely ever... For obvious reasons.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 163 bytes --]

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

[Matthew Thode]

On 10/13/2016 12:29 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> On Thursday, October 13, 2016 11:35:42 AM EDT Matthew Thode wrote:
>> Current bylaws state that to become a member you need to petition the
>> trustees for membership to the foundation.  What verification is done by
>> trustees is up in the air.  Members also seem to be members for life
>> unless they remove themselves are are removed by a vote of the trustees.
> 
> It is not in the current By Laws.
> 
> I seem to recall there were provision stating you remain a member as long as 
> you actively vote. If you do not vote after some period you can lose your 
> membership via means of forfeit or something to that effect.
> 
> I cannot find a link to it in the Gentoo archives, but my memory is correct. 
> See forwarded message below. I guess this never made it into the adopted by 
> laws. They should likely be amended.
> 
> The rationale was if you are not voting after a period of time. You obviously 
> lost interest, and thus membership. You could always re-apply to be a member 
> of the foundation if removed due to inactivity/non-voting.
> 
> ----------  Forwarded Message  ----------
> 
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-nfp] Bylaws question - 4.4 Continuation of membership: 
> Loss of interest
> Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2008, 11:26:27 PM EDT
> From: Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@gentoo.org>
> To: Robin H. Johnson <robbat2@gentoo.org>
> CC: gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org
> 
> On 2008.09.03 00:12, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>> Per the adopted bylaws:
>>> Section 4.4. Continuation of Membership
>> ...
>>> Loss of interest in the foundation shall be signalled by failure to
>>> return a ballot in two successive Trustee elections
>>
>> Is this retroactive on all previous foundations members that have not
>> voted in the last two Trustee elections?
>>
>> --
>> Robin Hugh Johnson
>> Gentoo Linux Developer & Infra Guy
>> E-Mail     : robbat2@gentoo.org
>> GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85
>>
> Robin,
> 
> No. They are 'Grandfathered' it applies to elections going forward.
> We had to have something to remove inactive members, or eventually,
> members meetings could never become quorate.
> 
> The first reduction in membership under this rule will occur following
> the Feb. 2010 elections, thats two elections from now.
> 
> --
> Regards,
> 
> Roy Bamford
> (NeddySeagoon) a member of
> gentoo-ops
> forum-mods
> treecleaners
> trustees
> 
> -----------------------------------------
> 

That's not in the wiki (where we list our bylaws) and if is the case
should be corrected.

-- 
-- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)

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

[Roy Bamford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2886 bytes --]

On 2016.10.13 17:35, Matthew Thode wrote:
> Current bylaws state that to become a member you need to petition the
> trustees for membership to the foundation.  What verification is done
> by
> trustees is up in the air. 
An @gentoo.org email reduces things to formalities. Foundation 
membership for devs is opt in rather that opt out as a few devs in the
early days objected to opt out.
Opt out makes a vote of members very difficult as there will be a large
part of the membership who won't vote.

For non dev Foundation members, the contribution to Gentoo is checked.
bugsie, forums, #gentoo-*  and so on. What is acceptable to show 
support for Gentoo is indeed left to the trustees on a case by case basis.    

> Members also seem to be members for life
> unless they remove themselves are are removed by a vote of the
> trustees.
or unless they fail to vote in two successive trustee elections.
This has not worked as well as was expected for keeping the 
membership current as we don't always hold a vote.
Trustee candidates can be elected unopposed.

> 
> I suggest we use and/or modify the existing staff quiz for use as a
> guide for who to admit, as 'graded' by trustees.  I also suggest that
> some for of positive acknowledgement that they will adhere to the CoC
> would be helpful as well.
> 
> Now, some have floated the idea that the foundation membership is
> somewhat defunct, and that may be the case.  Personally I think it
> should be reaffirmed each year (or some other time period that is
> agreed
> upon).  
That was the intent behind the 'two successive trustee elections',
which gives a period of two years.

But to 'clean' it up I think we should ask the existing
> members
> to at least agree to the CoC, and possibly also be staff.

That raises the bar to membership and dangles the carrot of a 
@gentoo.org and increases the workload on recruiters.
I'm not in favour of that combination.
It also raises the question of what project would such staffers belong
to?

We had one such case in the past. devrel (as they were) were very 
reluctant to agree a similar proposal at that time, even as an 
exception.

Non dev Foundation members typically contribute via Gentoo 
channels so the CoC behaviour is inferred. Enforcement is as it 
is for everyone. 

> 
> It's also been suggested that the foundation (active) membership is
> waning, so once / if we decide on an update to the membership policy I
> think we should mail the lists petitioning for memebers (-dev -project
> and maybe some others)

That never does any harm anyway.
> 
> The above would be an update to the bylaws and I want feedback before
> I
> propose it as an update.
> 
> -- 
> Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)



-- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) a member of
elections
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
trustees

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

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

[Rich Freeman]

On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:35 PM, Matthew Thode
<prometheanfire@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Current bylaws state that to become a member you need to petition the
> trustees for membership to the foundation.  What verification is done by
> trustees is up in the air.  Members also seem to be members for life
> unless they remove themselves are are removed by a vote of the trustees.
>
> I suggest we use and/or modify the existing staff quiz for use as a
> guide for who to admit, as 'graded' by trustees.  I also suggest that
> some for of positive acknowledgement that they will adhere to the CoC
> would be helpful as well.

We've already talked via IM, but some principles I have which probably
are worth just airing are:

We should have one standard for people who are "part of Gentoo."
Let's call them "staff" for the sake of argument.  Staff may or may
not commit to the tree (which is why I didn't use the term devs,
though I realize in practice we tend to use the two terms
interchangeably today).  However, they should be active contributors,
and there should be some kind of way of cleaning up people who aren't
active (the bar need not be super high).

Staff should be expected to adhere to the CoC, and should be all
subject to the same enforcement of it.  Staff should be automatically
members of the Foundation, and cease to be Foundation members when
they are no longer staff.  The Foundation should of course have a say
in the criteria for admission/removal as a result.  However, if we
want to be "one Gentoo" and stop being a "two headed monster" we need
to stop having multiple sets of criteria for how is and isn't a
member/voter/etc.

Developers with commit access are a subset of staff, and their commit
activity is subject to QA.  Staff who aren't developers are generally
not in the scope of QA.

There will need to be some teams responsible for administering people
getting in, and leaving (whether by inactivity, choice, or forcibly).
There will need to be a governance body with the final say in this.

I think if you start from this set of principles and work the rest
out, you're a lot more likely to end up with something that isn't a
two-headed beast.  You have one constituency, which is the start to
having a more unified leadership structure.  I don't think that this
addresses all the issues (not by a long shot), but having just one set
of members and standards and enforcement of those standards is
probably a necessary part of any solution.

-- 
Rich

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

[Roy Bamford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3236 bytes --]

On 2016.10.13 19:16, Matthew Thode wrote:
> On 10/13/2016 12:29 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 13, 2016 11:35:42 AM EDT Matthew Thode wrote:
> >> Current bylaws state that to become a member you need to petition
> the
> >> trustees for membership to the foundation.  What verification is
> done by
> >> trustees is up in the air.  Members also seem to be members for
> life
> >> unless they remove themselves are are removed by a vote of the
> trustees.
> > 
> > It is not in the current By Laws.
> > 
> > I seem to recall there were provision stating you remain a member as
> long as 
> > you actively vote. If you do not vote after some period you can lose
> your 
> > membership via means of forfeit or something to that effect.
> > 
> > I cannot find a link to it in the Gentoo archives, but my memory is
> correct. 
> > See forwarded message below. I guess this never made it into the
> adopted by 
> > laws. They should likely be amended.
> > 
> > The rationale was if you are not voting after a period of time. You
> obviously 
> > lost interest, and thus membership. You could always re-apply to be
> a member 
> > of the foundation if removed due to inactivity/non-voting.
> > 
> > ----------  Forwarded Message  ----------
> > 
> > Subject: Re: [gentoo-nfp] Bylaws question - 4.4 Continuation of
> membership: 
> > Loss of interest
> > Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2008, 11:26:27 PM EDT
> > From: Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@gentoo.org>
> > To: Robin H. Johnson <robbat2@gentoo.org>
> > CC: gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org
> > 
> > On 2008.09.03 00:12, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> >> Per the adopted bylaws:
> >>> Section 4.4. Continuation of Membership
> >> ...
> >>> Loss of interest in the foundation shall be signalled by failure
> to
> >>> return a ballot in two successive Trustee elections
> >>
> >> Is this retroactive on all previous foundations members that have
> not
> >> voted in the last two Trustee elections?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Robin Hugh Johnson
> >> Gentoo Linux Developer & Infra Guy
> >> E-Mail     : robbat2@gentoo.org
> >> GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85
> >>
> > Robin,
> > 
> > No. They are 'Grandfathered' it applies to elections going forward.
> > We had to have something to remove inactive members, or eventually,
> > members meetings could never become quorate.
> > 
> > The first reduction in membership under this rule will occur
> following
> > the Feb. 2010 elections, thats two elections from now.
> > 
> > --
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Roy Bamford
> > (NeddySeagoon) a member of
> > gentoo-ops
> > forum-mods
> > treecleaners
> > trustees
> > 
> > -----------------------------------------
> > 
> 
> That's not in the wiki (where we list our bylaws) and if is the case
> should be corrected.
> 
> -- 
> -- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)
> 
> 
> 

Matthew,

Well caught!

From memory, the bylaws have not been changed since they 
were adopted in 2008.

We need to do a CVS/Wiki compare and reinstate any lost 
text but not fix any typos.   

-- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) a member of
elections
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
trustees

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

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

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1560 bytes --]

Some definitions

- All devs are staff

- All staff are voting foundation members

- You can be staff without being a dev (forum, bugs, irc)

- Foundation membership is automatically revoked if you miss two
Foundation elections (not sure if this needs to change)



Proposal

- All prospective staff must apply to be Foundation members, allowing
for final approval by the trustees as is the current policy.  Anyone not
accepted will not be given staff membership.

- Any Foundation membership granted as a result of a staff position is
lost when the position as staff is concluded.

  - Any staff that is kicked or leaves during a ComRel incident may
appeal their incident with the appropriate body.  They will either
retain or lose both staff and foundation membership simultaneously.



Knock on effects

- May need to modify staff quiz.  Developers already take this so will
automatically satisfy this requirement.

Positive CoC acknowledgement should be included in the staff quiz

- By equating staff and Foundation membership we may have to change the
retirement criteria for staff.

- Staff will have to vote in Foundation elections.

- Staffers who are not devs do not belong to a project

  - projects could be made


Questions

- Do staff get gentoo.org email addresses?

  - I do not think it’s necessary
 (limits our liability (email addresses could be considered as loosing
property rights as mentioned elsewhere in one of these threads...), maybe)

-- 
-- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

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

[Raymond Jennings]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2070 bytes --]

I disagree with this part.

People should not be required in my opinion to be staff in order to have
membership in the foundation.

There may be people who don't know how to be staff, or can't be arsed to
learn, or whatever the case may be have problems being staff, but who still
love gentoo and help however they can.



On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:25 PM, Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@gentoo.org>
wrote:

> Some definitions
>
> - All devs are staff
>
> - All staff are voting foundation members
>
> - You can be staff without being a dev (forum, bugs, irc)
>
> - Foundation membership is automatically revoked if you miss two
> Foundation elections (not sure if this needs to change)
>
>
>
> Proposal
>
> - All prospective staff must apply to be Foundation members, allowing
> for final approval by the trustees as is the current policy.  Anyone not
> accepted will not be given staff membership.
>
> - Any Foundation membership granted as a result of a staff position is
> lost when the position as staff is concluded.
>
>   - Any staff that is kicked or leaves during a ComRel incident may
> appeal their incident with the appropriate body.  They will either
> retain or lose both staff and foundation membership simultaneously.
>
>
>
> Knock on effects
>
> - May need to modify staff quiz.  Developers already take this so will
> automatically satisfy this requirement.
>
> Positive CoC acknowledgement should be included in the staff quiz
>
> - By equating staff and Foundation membership we may have to change the
> retirement criteria for staff.
>
> - Staff will have to vote in Foundation elections.
>
> - Staffers who are not devs do not belong to a project
>
>   - projects could be made
>
>
> Questions
>
> - Do staff get gentoo.org email addresses?
>
>   - I do not think it’s necessary
>  (limits our liability (email addresses could be considered as loosing
> property rights as mentioned elsewhere in one of these threads...), maybe)
>
> --
> -- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2662 bytes --]

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

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 897 bytes --]

On Thursday, October 13, 2016 8:16:22 PM EDT Roy Bamford wrote:
> On 2016.10.13 19:16, Matthew Thode wrote:
> >
> > That's not in the wiki (where we list our bylaws) and if is the case
> > should be corrected.
> 
> Matthew,
> 
> Well caught!
> 
> From memory, the bylaws have not been changed since they
> were adopted in 2008.
> 
> We need to do a CVS/Wiki compare and reinstate any lost
> text but not fix any typos.

It may not have been adopted or part of any modifications. The Trustees would 
have to comment. That was a discussion that took place after I left. I am not 
sure if it was just a discussion or they changed things.

I thought I received an email sometime back about needing to vote or something 
regarding membership. Might have been the 2010 house cleaning mentioned. 
Pretty sure I lost my foundation membership long ago. 
-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 163 bytes --]

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

[John R. Graham]

-----Original Message-----
>From: Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@gentoo.org>
>Sent: Oct 13, 2016 3:25 PM
>To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
>Cc: gentoo-nfp <gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org>
>Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Foundation membership and who can join
<snip>
>- Staffers who are not devs do not belong to a project

Turns out not to be the case right now. Gentoo Forum Administrators are staff and
are members of the Gentoo Linux Forums project.

<snip>
>Questions
>
>- Do staff get gentoo.org email addresses?
>
>  - I do not think it’s necessary
Today, they do.

Regards,
John (john_r_graham@gentoo.org)

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

[NP-Hardass]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2645 bytes --]

The proposal does not make all members Gentoo staff. It primarily talks about staff as they relate to the foundation,. not the other direction. That said, the proposal does state that the staff quiz is required which is literally just affirming that you know how Gentoo is structured. The staff quiz is organization structure. Anyone who is a voting member in the foundation really should have that knowledge.

On October 13, 2016 3:28:56 PM EDT, Raymond Jennings <shentino@gmail.com> wrote:
>I disagree with this part.
>
>People should not be required in my opinion to be staff in order to
>have
>membership in the foundation.
>
>There may be people who don't know how to be staff, or can't be arsed
>to
>learn, or whatever the case may be have problems being staff, but who
>still
>love gentoo and help however they can.
>
>
>
>On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:25 PM, Matthew Thode
><prometheanfire@gentoo.org>
>wrote:
>
>> Some definitions
>>
>> - All devs are staff
>>
>> - All staff are voting foundation members
>>
>> - You can be staff without being a dev (forum, bugs, irc)
>>
>> - Foundation membership is automatically revoked if you miss two
>> Foundation elections (not sure if this needs to change)
>>
>>
>>
>> Proposal
>>
>> - All prospective staff must apply to be Foundation members, allowing
>> for final approval by the trustees as is the current policy.  Anyone
>not
>> accepted will not be given staff membership.
>>
>> - Any Foundation membership granted as a result of a staff position
>is
>> lost when the position as staff is concluded.
>>
>>   - Any staff that is kicked or leaves during a ComRel incident may
>> appeal their incident with the appropriate body.  They will either
>> retain or lose both staff and foundation membership simultaneously.
>>
>>
>>
>> Knock on effects
>>
>> - May need to modify staff quiz.  Developers already take this so
>will
>> automatically satisfy this requirement.
>>
>> Positive CoC acknowledgement should be included in the staff quiz
>>
>> - By equating staff and Foundation membership we may have to change
>the
>> retirement criteria for staff.
>>
>> - Staff will have to vote in Foundation elections.
>>
>> - Staffers who are not devs do not belong to a project
>>
>>   - projects could be made
>>
>>
>> Questions
>>
>> - Do staff get gentoo.org email addresses?
>>
>>   - I do not think it’s necessary
>>  (limits our liability (email addresses could be considered as
>loosing
>> property rights as mentioned elsewhere in one of these threads...),
>maybe)
>>
>> --
>> -- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)
>>
>>

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3534 bytes --]

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

[NP-Hardass]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 906 bytes --]

I was under the impression that the distinguishing factor is commit access to the main repo.

On October 13, 2016 3:50:30 PM EDT, "John R. Graham" <john_r_graham@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@gentoo.org>
>>Sent: Oct 13, 2016 3:25 PM
>>To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
>>Cc: gentoo-nfp <gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org>
>>Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Foundation membership and who can join
><snip>
>>- Staffers who are not devs do not belong to a project
>
>Turns out not to be the case right now. Gentoo Forum Administrators are
>staff and
>are members of the Gentoo Linux Forums project.
>
><snip>
>>Questions
>>
>>- Do staff get gentoo.org email addresses?
>>
>>  - I do not think it’s necessary
>Today, they do.
>
>Regards,
>John (john_r_graham@gentoo.org)

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1729 bytes --]

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

[Rich Freeman]

On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 7:44 PM, NP-Hardass <NP-Hardass@gentoo.org> wrote:
> The proposal does not make all members Gentoo staff.

Then, IMO, it isn't an improvement.  Certainly my intent was for it to
make all Foundation members Gentoo staff.

I think that all Foundation members should be staff, and all staff
should be Foundation members.  If somebody isn't qualified to be in
one, they shouldn't be in the other.  If somebody doesn't want to be
in one, they shouldn't be in the other.

I'm not suggesting that there should be some kind of onerous
requirement to be staff.

I think one of the biggest problems that you need to solve if you want
to try to reform the meta-structure is that we have multiple
constituencies right now.  My goal would be to fix that.  If somebody
isn't active enough to be considered staff, then they shouldn't be
voting on the governance of the distro.  If they're going to be voting
on governance, then they should be well-versed in how things work.

-- 
Rich

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

[Matthew Thode]

On 10/13/2016 07:53 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 7:44 PM, NP-Hardass <NP-Hardass@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> The proposal does not make all members Gentoo staff.
> 
> Then, IMO, it isn't an improvement.  Certainly my intent was for it to
> make all Foundation members Gentoo staff.
> 
> I think that all Foundation members should be staff, and all staff
> should be Foundation members.  If somebody isn't qualified to be in
> one, they shouldn't be in the other.  If somebody doesn't want to be
> in one, they shouldn't be in the other.
> 
> I'm not suggesting that there should be some kind of onerous
> requirement to be staff.
> 
> I think one of the biggest problems that you need to solve if you want
> to try to reform the meta-structure is that we have multiple
> constituencies right now.  My goal would be to fix that.  If somebody
> isn't active enough to be considered staff, then they shouldn't be
> voting on the governance of the distro.  If they're going to be voting
> on governance, then they should be well-versed in how things work.
> 

It was my intention that all foundation members be staff as well, I'll
amend it and re-reply as a new base sub-thread.

-- 
-- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)

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

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1588 bytes --]

Some definitions
- All devs are staff
- All staff are foundation members
- All foundation members are staff
- All foundation members are voting
- You can be staff without being a dev (forum, bugs, irc)
- Foundation membership is automatically revoked if you miss two
Foundation elections (not sure if this needs to change)

Proposal
- All prospective staff must apply to be Foundation members, allowing
for final approval by the trustees as is the current policy.  Anyone not
accepted will not be given staff membership.
- Any Foundation membership granted as a result of a staff position is
lost when the position as staff is concluded.
  - Any staff that is kicked or leaves during a ComRel incident may
appeal their incident with the appropriate body.  They will either
retain or lose both staff and foundation membership simultaneously.

Knock on effects
- May need to modify staff quiz.  Developers already take this so will
automatically satisfy this requirement.  Positive CoC acknowledgement
should be included in the staff quiz.
- By equating staff and Foundation membership we may have to change the
retirement criteria for staff.
- Staff will have to vote in Foundation elections.
- Staffers who are not devs do not belong to a project
  - projects could be made

Questions
- Do staff get gentoo.org email addresses?
  - I do not think it’s necessary
 (limits our liability (email addresses could be considered as loosing
property rights as mentioned elsewhere in one of these threads...), maybe)

-- 
-- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

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

[Ian Stakenvicius]

> On Oct 13, 2016, at 9:06 PM, Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> Some definitions
> - All devs are staff
> - All staff are foundation members
> - All foundation members are staff
> - All foundation members are voting
> - You can be staff without being a dev (forum, bugs, irc)
> - Foundation membership is automatically revoked if you miss two
> Foundation elections (not sure if this needs to change)
> 

So what happens, exactly, when a dev misses two elections? 

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

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 805 bytes --]

On 10/13/2016 10:33 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> 
>> On Oct 13, 2016, at 9:06 PM, Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>> Some definitions
>> - All devs are staff
>> - All staff are foundation members
>> - All foundation members are staff
>> - All foundation members are voting
>> - You can be staff without being a dev (forum, bugs, irc)
>> - Foundation membership is automatically revoked if you miss two
>> Foundation elections (not sure if this needs to change)
>>
> 
> So what happens, exactly, when a dev misses two elections? 
> 
> 

I'm not certain, I personally don't think that alone should be enough
for retirement, but perhaps a probation for a year (til next election)
then retirement if they don't vote again?

-- 
-- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

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

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1363 bytes --]

On Thursday, October 13, 2016 12:28:56 PM EDT Raymond Jennings wrote:
> I disagree with this part.
> 
> People should not be required in my opinion to be staff in order to have
> membership in the foundation.

Agreed, "outsiders" should have means for membership.

> There may be people who don't know how to be staff, or can't be arsed to
> learn, or whatever the case may be have problems being staff, but who still
> love gentoo and help however they can.

Unless it has or does change, the idea behind the present By Laws and outside 
membership was via application to the trustees. Not that there is any Gentoo 
Foundation membership form/application or formal process.

The idea was simply if any person/entity could show merit to the Trustees and 
justify membership. The trustees could approve or deny their application. In 
theory they would contribute via some means, ebuilds, bugs, resources, etc.

In a grand sense some foundation members would be representatives of 
businesses with interest in Gentoo. Kind of like how Gnome and other projects 
have involvement, but not a Advisory board per se, just members.

https://wiki.gnome.org/AdvisoryBoard

Any member only has 1 vote, no way to influence a vote over all. Would take 
allot of outsiders, approved by Trustees to cause any problems.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 163 bytes --]

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

[Daniel Campbell]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3701 bytes --]

On 10/13/2016 11:56 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:35 PM, Matthew Thode
> <prometheanfire@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> Current bylaws state that to become a member you need to petition the
>> trustees for membership to the foundation.  What verification is done by
>> trustees is up in the air.  Members also seem to be members for life
>> unless they remove themselves are are removed by a vote of the trustees.
>>
>> I suggest we use and/or modify the existing staff quiz for use as a
>> guide for who to admit, as 'graded' by trustees.  I also suggest that
>> some for of positive acknowledgement that they will adhere to the CoC
>> would be helpful as well.
> 
> We've already talked via IM, but some principles I have which probably
> are worth just airing are:
> 
> We should have one standard for people who are "part of Gentoo."
> Let's call them "staff" for the sake of argument.  Staff may or may
> not commit to the tree (which is why I didn't use the term devs,
> though I realize in practice we tend to use the two terms
> interchangeably today).  However, they should be active contributors,
> and there should be some kind of way of cleaning up people who aren't
> active (the bar need not be super high).
> 
> Staff should be expected to adhere to the CoC, and should be all
> subject to the same enforcement of it.  Staff should be automatically
> members of the Foundation, and cease to be Foundation members when
> they are no longer staff.  The Foundation should of course have a say
> in the criteria for admission/removal as a result.  However, if we
> want to be "one Gentoo" and stop being a "two headed monster" we need
> to stop having multiple sets of criteria for how is and isn't a
> member/voter/etc.
> 
> Developers with commit access are a subset of staff, and their commit
> activity is subject to QA.  Staff who aren't developers are generally
> not in the scope of QA.
> 
> There will need to be some teams responsible for administering people
> getting in, and leaving (whether by inactivity, choice, or forcibly).
> There will need to be a governance body with the final say in this.
> 
> I think if you start from this set of principles and work the rest
> out, you're a lot more likely to end up with something that isn't a
> two-headed beast.  You have one constituency, which is the start to
> having a more unified leadership structure.  I don't think that this
> addresses all the issues (not by a long shot), but having just one set
> of members and standards and enforcement of those standards is
> probably a necessary part of any solution.
> 
All in all fair points. What do we do with developers who are
legitimately held up in RL affairs and have appropriately indicated so
in devaway? Consensus seems to hold that 6-9 months of inactivity could
be enough to invoke Undertaker action. Should that happen and a
developer come back, would they need to pass the ebuild tests again, or
merely talk to infra to get their account "unlocked" so to speak?

I ask because I can think of a few developers who aren't too active, but
I don't feel their dev status should be revoked for inactivity --
especially if said inactivity is not something within their (easy)
control, like the birth of a child, crunch time at work, and so on.

But I see the need to keep Gentoo not only clean, but secure. Automatic
'locking' of an account after 6 months or something could help diminish
the attack surface of infra, and is easily reversible.

-- 
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C  1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

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

[M. J. Everitt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 999 bytes --]


On 14/10/16 05:31, Daniel Campbell wrote:
>
> All in all fair points. What do we do with developers who are
> legitimately held up in RL affairs and have appropriately indicated so
> in devaway? Consensus seems to hold that 6-9 months of inactivity could
> be enough to invoke Undertaker action. Should that happen and a
> developer come back, would they need to pass the ebuild tests again, or
> merely talk to infra to get their account "unlocked" so to speak?
>
> I ask because I can think of a few developers who aren't too active, but
> I don't feel their dev status should be revoked for inactivity --
> especially if said inactivity is not something within their (easy)
> control, like the birth of a child, crunch time at work, and so on.
>
> But I see the need to keep Gentoo not only clean, but secure. Automatic
> 'locking' of an account after 6 months or something could help diminish
> the attack surface of infra, and is easily reversible.
>
+10 to all of this.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 901 bytes --]

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

[Nick Vinson]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2270 bytes --]



On 10/13/2016 06:06 PM, Matthew Thode wrote:
> Some definitions
> - All devs are staff
> - All staff are foundation members
> - All foundation members are staff
> - All foundation members are voting
> - You can be staff without being a dev (forum, bugs, irc)
> - Foundation membership is automatically revoked if you miss two
> Foundation elections (not sure if this needs to change)
> 
> Proposal
> - All prospective staff must apply to be Foundation members, allowing
> for final approval by the trustees as is the current policy.  Anyone not
> accepted will not be given staff membership.
> - Any Foundation membership granted as a result of a staff position is
> lost when the position as staff is concluded.
>   - Any staff that is kicked or leaves during a ComRel incident may
> appeal their incident with the appropriate body.  They will either
> retain or lose both staff and foundation membership simultaneously.
> 
> Knock on effects
> - May need to modify staff quiz.  Developers already take this so will
> automatically satisfy this requirement.  Positive CoC acknowledgement
> should be included in the staff quiz.
> - By equating staff and Foundation membership we may have to change the
> retirement criteria for staff.
> - Staff will have to vote in Foundation elections.
> - Staffers who are not devs do not belong to a project
>   - projects could be made
> 
> Questions
> - Do staff get gentoo.org email addresses?
>   - I do not think it’s necessary
>  (limits our liability (email addresses could be considered as loosing
> property rights as mentioned elsewhere in one of these threads...), maybe)

I don't think so (but not a lawyer).  Otherwise, you wouldn't see
companies assigning email addresses to their employees with the company
domain.

That said, it might be nice if you could use the email addresses to
figure out who you're talking to at first glance.  Something like:

.staff.getnoo.org -- general staff member
.dev.gentoo.org -- gentoo developer
.trustee.gentoo.org -- gentoo trustee
.councilor.gentoo.org -- gentoo council member

etc.

Plese note that I'm not suggesting each project get its own subdomain.
Just a few "key" top-level entities / groups inside Gentoo.
> 


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

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

[Michał Górny]

Dnia 14 października 2016 06:37:07 CEST, Nick Vinson <nvinson234@gmail.com> napisał(a):
>
>
>On 10/13/2016 06:06 PM, Matthew Thode wrote:
>> Some definitions
>> - All devs are staff
>> - All staff are foundation members
>> - All foundation members are staff
>> - All foundation members are voting
>> - You can be staff without being a dev (forum, bugs, irc)
>> - Foundation membership is automatically revoked if you miss two
>> Foundation elections (not sure if this needs to change)
>> 
>> Proposal
>> - All prospective staff must apply to be Foundation members, allowing
>> for final approval by the trustees as is the current policy.  Anyone
>not
>> accepted will not be given staff membership.
>> - Any Foundation membership granted as a result of a staff position
>is
>> lost when the position as staff is concluded.
>>   - Any staff that is kicked or leaves during a ComRel incident may
>> appeal their incident with the appropriate body.  They will either
>> retain or lose both staff and foundation membership simultaneously.
>> 
>> Knock on effects
>> - May need to modify staff quiz.  Developers already take this so
>will
>> automatically satisfy this requirement.  Positive CoC acknowledgement
>> should be included in the staff quiz.
>> - By equating staff and Foundation membership we may have to change
>the
>> retirement criteria for staff.
>> - Staff will have to vote in Foundation elections.
>> - Staffers who are not devs do not belong to a project
>>   - projects could be made
>> 
>> Questions
>> - Do staff get gentoo.org email addresses?
>>   - I do not think it’s necessary
>>  (limits our liability (email addresses could be considered as
>loosing
>> property rights as mentioned elsewhere in one of these threads...),
>maybe)
>
>I don't think so (but not a lawyer).  Otherwise, you wouldn't see
>companies assigning email addresses to their employees with the company
>domain.
>
>That said, it might be nice if you could use the email addresses to
>figure out who you're talking to at first glance.  Something like:
>
>.staff.getnoo.org -- general staff member
>.dev.gentoo.org -- gentoo developer
>.trustee.gentoo.org -- gentoo trustee
>.councilor.gentoo.org -- gentoo council member

And you suddenly invalidate the email on next election?

>
>etc.
>
>Plese note that I'm not suggesting each project get its own subdomain.
>Just a few "key" top-level entities / groups inside Gentoo.
>> 


-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny (by phone)

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

[Raymond Jennings]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2786 bytes --]

forwarding and aliases ;)

On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 11:52 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Dnia 14 października 2016 06:37:07 CEST, Nick Vinson <nvinson234@gmail.com>
> napisał(a):
> >
> >
> >On 10/13/2016 06:06 PM, Matthew Thode wrote:
> >> Some definitions
> >> - All devs are staff
> >> - All staff are foundation members
> >> - All foundation members are staff
> >> - All foundation members are voting
> >> - You can be staff without being a dev (forum, bugs, irc)
> >> - Foundation membership is automatically revoked if you miss two
> >> Foundation elections (not sure if this needs to change)
> >>
> >> Proposal
> >> - All prospective staff must apply to be Foundation members, allowing
> >> for final approval by the trustees as is the current policy.  Anyone
> >not
> >> accepted will not be given staff membership.
> >> - Any Foundation membership granted as a result of a staff position
> >is
> >> lost when the position as staff is concluded.
> >>   - Any staff that is kicked or leaves during a ComRel incident may
> >> appeal their incident with the appropriate body.  They will either
> >> retain or lose both staff and foundation membership simultaneously.
> >>
> >> Knock on effects
> >> - May need to modify staff quiz.  Developers already take this so
> >will
> >> automatically satisfy this requirement.  Positive CoC acknowledgement
> >> should be included in the staff quiz.
> >> - By equating staff and Foundation membership we may have to change
> >the
> >> retirement criteria for staff.
> >> - Staff will have to vote in Foundation elections.
> >> - Staffers who are not devs do not belong to a project
> >>   - projects could be made
> >>
> >> Questions
> >> - Do staff get gentoo.org email addresses?
> >>   - I do not think it’s necessary
> >>  (limits our liability (email addresses could be considered as
> >loosing
> >> property rights as mentioned elsewhere in one of these threads...),
> >maybe)
> >
> >I don't think so (but not a lawyer).  Otherwise, you wouldn't see
> >companies assigning email addresses to their employees with the company
> >domain.
> >
> >That said, it might be nice if you could use the email addresses to
> >figure out who you're talking to at first glance.  Something like:
> >
> >.staff.getnoo.org -- general staff member
> >.dev.gentoo.org -- gentoo developer
> >.trustee.gentoo.org -- gentoo trustee
> >.councilor.gentoo.org -- gentoo council member
>
> And you suddenly invalidate the email on next election?
>
> >
> >etc.
> >
> >Plese note that I'm not suggesting each project get its own subdomain.
> >Just a few "key" top-level entities / groups inside Gentoo.
> >>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Michał Górny (by phone)
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4096 bytes --]

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

[Raymond Jennings]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4041 bytes --]

Personally I think the only requirement for being a foundation member is
agreement to adhere to the CoC, and proof of contribution and involvement.
I do not think the contribution bar should be very high, as anyone with a
purple and green heart should be welcome as a foundation member in my
opinion, and anyone who loves gentoo and can behave decently enough not to
damage it should be welcome.

I also disagree that loss of membership in one should get you booted out of
the other.   I will say, however, that if a person is forcibly removed from
staff, the foundation's trustees should be notified.  If it was due to a
CoC violation then there's a strong cause to have them removed as a
foundation member.  If it was due to technical incompetence or due to
breaking the tree one times too many, but they still can contribute in
other ways, then no I don't think its proper to remove them.

Furthermore, I don't think we should limit gentoo project staff roles, or
foundation membership, to developers.  There are plenty of people who care
about Gentoo who aren't technically inclined enough to be developers.

How about this:

1.  The baseline role is "Gentoo loyalist" of some sort

To become a loyalist, you simply have to agree to the CoC.  This could even
be an abstract social construct and only evaluated as needed.

A CoC violation is punishable, and will cause the person's "loyal" status
to be revoked or suspended.  This part *automatically* suspends or revokes
any other official roles, be it foundation member, developer, or staff.

2.  Foundation member

To become a foundation member, you must be in good standing wrt the CoC,
and make enough of a contribution to Gentoo that the trustees see fit to
recruit you as a foundation member.  The standard they will use to judge
you is being passionate enough about gentoo to be helpful in some way.

If you become "dead weight" or prove that you've lost your passion for
gentoo, you get discharged as a member.

3.  Developer

A developer is someone who has passed the ebuild quiz and demonstrated
technical competence to where they can be trusted with direct access to the
portage tree.

Technical incompetence, breaking the tree, violating project protocols, and
the like can get your dev status yanked either temporarily or permanently
or indefinitely.

4.  Staff

A staff is anyone with any kind of authority or management role within
gentoo.  You must take and pass the staff quiz.

Once you pass the staff quiz, you can be granted privileges on bugzilla,
the forums, mailing lists, access to privileged resources on infra, etc.

If you screw up, you can be destaffed.

----

I think that developer, staff, and foundation member should be kept
separately toggled by circumstance.  Only for a CoC violation should there
be any sort of "cascade" reaction that gets you booted from multiple roles
automatically.

5.  Council

A council member is someone who has been

On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 7:44 PM, NP-Hardass <NP-Hardass@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > The proposal does not make all members Gentoo staff.
>
> Then, IMO, it isn't an improvement.  Certainly my intent was for it to
> make all Foundation members Gentoo staff.
>
> I think that all Foundation members should be staff, and all staff
> should be Foundation members.  If somebody isn't qualified to be in
> one, they shouldn't be in the other.  If somebody doesn't want to be
> in one, they shouldn't be in the other.
>
> I'm not suggesting that there should be some kind of onerous
> requirement to be staff.
>
> I think one of the biggest problems that you need to solve if you want
> to try to reform the meta-structure is that we have multiple
> constituencies right now.  My goal would be to fix that.  If somebody
> isn't active enough to be considered staff, then they shouldn't be
> voting on the governance of the distro.  If they're going to be voting
> on governance, then they should be well-versed in how things work.
>
> --
> Rich
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5143 bytes --]

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

[Roy Bamford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2330 bytes --]

On 2016.10.14 04:48, Matthew Thode wrote:
> On 10/13/2016 10:33 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> > 
> >> On Oct 13, 2016, at 9:06 PM, Matthew Thode
> <prometheanfire@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Some definitions
> >> - All devs are staff
> >> - All staff are foundation members
> >> - All foundation members are staff
> >> - All foundation members are voting
> >> - You can be staff without being a dev (forum, bugs, irc)
> >> - Foundation membership is automatically revoked if you miss two
> >> Foundation elections (not sure if this needs to change)
> >>
> > 
> > So what happens, exactly, when a dev misses two elections? 
> > 
> > 
> 
> I'm not certain, I personally don't think that alone should be enough
> for retirement, but perhaps a probation for a year (til next election)
> then retirement if they don't vote again?
> 
> -- 
> -- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)
> 
> 

Matthew,

Longer term, this doesn't change anything.  I'll do a worked example
below, what am I missing?

May 2017, the above bylaw change is adopted by the Foundation
Jun - Aug 2017, first Trustee election including the enlarged 
Foundation electorate. The number of devs casting a vote is 
unchanged from prior years so the turnout goes down.
Longer standing members are pruned in accordance with the two 
year rule.
Jul - Aug 2018 the process repeats.  This time, most of the 
(conscript) devs who became Foundation members in May 2017 
under the bylaw change are pruned and we are back to those 
having an active interest.

The problem is not so much the differing constituencies, long 
term, that won't change. Its the numbers active in the differing 
constituencies.

This proposal doesn't really address that.  It aligns the  
constituencies in May 2017, in my example, and that's gone
by the end of Aug 2018, two elections later.

How do you keep the constituencies aligned or does it really
not matter because only those interested will vote anyway.
Its not difficult for interested devs to become Foundation 
members if they want to and the Foundation has always
advertised the recording date for Trustee elections in good
time to allow devs to join without missing the vote.  

-- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) a member of
elections
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
trustees

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

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

[Raymond Jennings]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2636 bytes --]

My personal opinion is that the only global qualification should be
adherance to the CoC, but that different roles (foundation member, staff
member, developer) should be kept orthogonal.

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 1:47 AM, Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@gentoo.org>
wrote:

> On 2016.10.14 04:48, Matthew Thode wrote:
> > On 10/13/2016 10:33 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Oct 13, 2016, at 9:06 PM, Matthew Thode
> > <prometheanfire@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Some definitions
> > >> - All devs are staff
> > >> - All staff are foundation members
> > >> - All foundation members are staff
> > >> - All foundation members are voting
> > >> - You can be staff without being a dev (forum, bugs, irc)
> > >> - Foundation membership is automatically revoked if you miss two
> > >> Foundation elections (not sure if this needs to change)
> > >>
> > >
> > > So what happens, exactly, when a dev misses two elections?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I'm not certain, I personally don't think that alone should be enough
> > for retirement, but perhaps a probation for a year (til next election)
> > then retirement if they don't vote again?
> >
> > --
> > -- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)
> >
> >
>
> Matthew,
>
> Longer term, this doesn't change anything.  I'll do a worked example
> below, what am I missing?
>
> May 2017, the above bylaw change is adopted by the Foundation
> Jun - Aug 2017, first Trustee election including the enlarged
> Foundation electorate. The number of devs casting a vote is
> unchanged from prior years so the turnout goes down.
> Longer standing members are pruned in accordance with the two
> year rule.
> Jul - Aug 2018 the process repeats.  This time, most of the
> (conscript) devs who became Foundation members in May 2017
> under the bylaw change are pruned and we are back to those
> having an active interest.
>
> The problem is not so much the differing constituencies, long
> term, that won't change. Its the numbers active in the differing
> constituencies.
>
> This proposal doesn't really address that.  It aligns the
> constituencies in May 2017, in my example, and that's gone
> by the end of Aug 2018, two elections later.
>
> How do you keep the constituencies aligned or does it really
> not matter because only those interested will vote anyway.
> Its not difficult for interested devs to become Foundation
> members if they want to and the Foundation has always
> advertised the recording date for Trustee elections in good
> time to allow devs to join without missing the vote.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Roy Bamford
> (Neddyseagoon) a member of
> elections
> gentoo-ops
> forum-mods
> trustees
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3548 bytes --]

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

[Ian Stakenvicius]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2961 bytes --]

On 14/10/16 04:47 AM, Roy Bamford wrote:
> On 2016.10.14 04:48, Matthew Thode wrote:
>> On 10/13/2016 10:33 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Oct 13, 2016, at 9:06 PM, Matthew Thode
>> <prometheanfire@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Some definitions
>>>> - All devs are staff
>>>> - All staff are foundation members
>>>> - All foundation members are staff
>>>> - All foundation members are voting
>>>> - You can be staff without being a dev (forum, bugs, irc)
>>>> - Foundation membership is automatically revoked if you miss two
>>>> Foundation elections (not sure if this needs to change)
>>>>
>>>
>>> So what happens, exactly, when a dev misses two elections? 
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I'm not certain, I personally don't think that alone should be enough
>> for retirement, but perhaps a probation for a year (til next election)
>> then retirement if they don't vote again?
>>
>> -- 
>> -- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)
>>
>>
> 
> Matthew,
> 
> Longer term, this doesn't change anything.  I'll do a worked example
> below, what am I missing?
> 
> May 2017, the above bylaw change is adopted by the Foundation
> Jun - Aug 2017, first Trustee election including the enlarged 
> Foundation electorate. The number of devs casting a vote is 
> unchanged from prior years so the turnout goes down.
> Longer standing members are pruned in accordance with the two 
> year rule.
> Jul - Aug 2018 the process repeats.  This time, most of the 
> (conscript) devs who became Foundation members in May 2017 
> under the bylaw change are pruned and we are back to those 
> having an active interest.
> 
> The problem is not so much the differing constituencies, long 
> term, that won't change. Its the numbers active in the differing 
> constituencies.
> 
> This proposal doesn't really address that.  It aligns the  
> constituencies in May 2017, in my example, and that's gone
> by the end of Aug 2018, two elections later.
> 
> How do you keep the constituencies aligned or does it really
> not matter because only those interested will vote anyway.
> Its not difficult for interested devs to become Foundation 
> members if they want to and the Foundation has always
> advertised the recording date for Trustee elections in good
> time to allow devs to join without missing the vote.  
> 

The tricky technical part here that I worry about is the Gentoo Dev
<-> Gentoo Staff assertion, and the hard
staff-must-be-foundation-member and foundation-member-must-be-staff
rules listed above.  Loss of foundation membership seems that it must
remove staff status by definition, but since dev's are staff simply
because they're dev's, are they still a dev when they lose their staff
status?

Now, there may well be good reason to force the Dev<->Foundation
member assumption.  However I think the Dev<->Staff thing should
probably be decoupled if one cannot be staff without being a
foundation member.



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 213 bytes --]

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

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 8:08 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> The tricky technical part here that I worry about is the Gentoo Dev
> <-> Gentoo Staff assertion, and the hard
> staff-must-be-foundation-member and foundation-member-must-be-staff
> rules listed above.  Loss of foundation membership seems that it must
> remove staff status by definition, but since dev's are staff simply
> because they're dev's, are they still a dev when they lose their staff
> status?
>

Yes

> Now, there may well be good reason to force the Dev<->Foundation
> member assumption.  However I think the Dev<->Staff thing should
> probably be decoupled if one cannot be staff without being a
> foundation member.

I disagree.  Let me explain why I am suggesting making the various
groups tightly bound:

One of the problems we have with the current organizational model is
that we have two different pools of voters (Foundation members and
"Developers" (which today includes anybody with an @g.o address even
if they don't have commit access - the proposal splits that into Staff
and Developers)).  They each elect a set of leaders, which differing
areas of responsibility (but also with some degree of overlap, since
the Foundation has a mission bigger than keeping the lights on and the
Council currently oversees Comrel/CoC/etc).

If we want to rationalize the leadership, we also need to deal with
their constituencies.

Let's take for example the case of somebody booted as a Dev because of
some CoC violation.  For the sake of simplicity let's assume it was an
open-and-shut case perfectly handled and Comrel worked in a manner all
would agree with.  Under our current model, they would stop being a
dev and might be banned from IRC/etc.  However, they can still vote
for Trustees.  Does that really make sense?  Likewise, if somebody
leaves due to inactivity but keeps voting in Trustee elections, they
also can remain part of the Foundation indefinitely.

I'm sure our "alumni" in general care about Gentoo, but the reality is
that they don't really have much involvement in the day-to-day.  Do we
want them picking our leaders/etc?  Today the functions of the
Trustees are more limited, so it hasn't been as large an issue (though
as has been pointed out, the legal powers of the Trustees are quite
large and even if they wisely choose not to exercise them carelessly
we should certainly exercise care with who we trust in this role).
However, if we want to expand their powers in practice (setting aside
whether they already have them legally) then we should probably think
about who they answer to.  Suppose we did come up with a new Comrel
GLEP and decided to put it up to a general vote for approval; right
now we need to figure out which of the two groups of constituents to
poll.

I don't think we need to add a lot of bureaucracy in practice to make
this work.  In general anybody qualified to be a dev is already
qualified to be a Foundation member, even if we make them apply for it
currently.  While we don't automatically boot people who aren't devs I
don't see why this would become a problem if the Foundation is
overseeing the processes by which people leave anyway.

The only real administrative burden it would place on devs is the
requirements to vote for a Trustee at least once every two years.  I'm
all ears if somebody has a way to make that go away.  The practical
issue here is the need to have a quorum under New Mexico law, so if we
get low turnout the election may not be valid.  While this hasn't come
up, there is another benefit to making the pool of foundation members
both large and reasonably active: it makes any kind of "hostile
takeover" much harder to pull off, while actually making a "good
takeover" easier.  If some kind of outsider wants to infiltrate they
need to get a quorum to show up to a meeting and control a majority of
votes there, and that is harder when there are more members required
to constitute a quorum.  On the other hand, if somehow things get out
of control and the community needs to take things back, then not
having deadwood in the voting rolls means that those who are actively
involved would find it easier to constitute a quorum at such a
meeting.  Really, you just want the legal representation of the
organization to match those who are actively a part of it.

So, the question becomes is compulsory voting a reasonable price to
pay for better governance.  In some (but not many) countries they feel
strongly enough about such things that they actually fine you for
failing to vote.

If we just maintain the status quo across the board I can see less
urgency here.  However, if we're going to go so far as to consider
putting the Trustees at the top of the food chain wouldn't it make
sense to also take a look at how they get elected?  And why would we
want them maintaining multiple sets of criteria and admission
processes for the two groups of members they'd now administer?

All that said, this should also demonstrate that "re-organizing"
Gentoo isn't really just as simple as changing a word in the Wiki
about where Comrel appeals go.  There are a multitude of concerns that
need to be dealt with.

-- 
Rich

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

[Raymond Jennings]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6791 bytes --]

That's why I made my own proposal.

class supporter
{
    string name;
    string email;
    set<string> project_memberships;
    bool is_foundation_member;
    bool agreed_to_coc;
public:
    supporter()
    {
        agree_to_coc()
    };
    virtual ~supporter()
    {
        // violated CoC
        revoke_access_to_portage_tree();
        revoke_access_to_staff_areas();
        revoke_foundation_membership();
    }
};

class developer: virtual public class supporter
{
    set<string> projects_maintained;
public:
    developer(const mentor *m, const recruiter *r)
    {
        pass_ebuild_quiz();
        pass_end_quiz();
        m->file_dev_bug();
        r->receive_quizzes();
        r->interview_developer(this);
        grant_access_to_portage_tree();
    };
};

class staff: virtual public class supporter
{
public:
    staff()
    {
        pass_staff_quiz();
        grant_access(); // irc, forums, ml, bugzilla, infra, etc etc etc
    };
};

class foundationmember: virtual public class supporter
{
public:
    foundationmember()
    {
        foundation::trustees.approve(this);
    };
};

And of course people could occupy more than one such "derived" role at the
same time, but all three roles have the baseline of being a 'supporter"
that at a minimum requres agreement to, and compliance with, the CoC.

Thoughts?

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 5:43 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 8:08 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > The tricky technical part here that I worry about is the Gentoo Dev
> > <-> Gentoo Staff assertion, and the hard
> > staff-must-be-foundation-member and foundation-member-must-be-staff
> > rules listed above.  Loss of foundation membership seems that it must
> > remove staff status by definition, but since dev's are staff simply
> > because they're dev's, are they still a dev when they lose their staff
> > status?
> >
>
> Yes
>
> > Now, there may well be good reason to force the Dev<->Foundation
> > member assumption.  However I think the Dev<->Staff thing should
> > probably be decoupled if one cannot be staff without being a
> > foundation member.
>
> I disagree.  Let me explain why I am suggesting making the various
> groups tightly bound:
>
> One of the problems we have with the current organizational model is
> that we have two different pools of voters (Foundation members and
> "Developers" (which today includes anybody with an @g.o address even
> if they don't have commit access - the proposal splits that into Staff
> and Developers)).  They each elect a set of leaders, which differing
> areas of responsibility (but also with some degree of overlap, since
> the Foundation has a mission bigger than keeping the lights on and the
> Council currently oversees Comrel/CoC/etc).
>
> If we want to rationalize the leadership, we also need to deal with
> their constituencies.
>
> Let's take for example the case of somebody booted as a Dev because of
> some CoC violation.  For the sake of simplicity let's assume it was an
> open-and-shut case perfectly handled and Comrel worked in a manner all
> would agree with.  Under our current model, they would stop being a
> dev and might be banned from IRC/etc.  However, they can still vote
> for Trustees.  Does that really make sense?  Likewise, if somebody
> leaves due to inactivity but keeps voting in Trustee elections, they
> also can remain part of the Foundation indefinitely.
>
> I'm sure our "alumni" in general care about Gentoo, but the reality is
> that they don't really have much involvement in the day-to-day.  Do we
> want them picking our leaders/etc?  Today the functions of the
> Trustees are more limited, so it hasn't been as large an issue (though
> as has been pointed out, the legal powers of the Trustees are quite
> large and even if they wisely choose not to exercise them carelessly
> we should certainly exercise care with who we trust in this role).
> However, if we want to expand their powers in practice (setting aside
> whether they already have them legally) then we should probably think
> about who they answer to.  Suppose we did come up with a new Comrel
> GLEP and decided to put it up to a general vote for approval; right
> now we need to figure out which of the two groups of constituents to
> poll.
>
> I don't think we need to add a lot of bureaucracy in practice to make
> this work.  In general anybody qualified to be a dev is already
> qualified to be a Foundation member, even if we make them apply for it
> currently.  While we don't automatically boot people who aren't devs I
> don't see why this would become a problem if the Foundation is
> overseeing the processes by which people leave anyway.
>
> The only real administrative burden it would place on devs is the
> requirements to vote for a Trustee at least once every two years.  I'm
> all ears if somebody has a way to make that go away.  The practical
> issue here is the need to have a quorum under New Mexico law, so if we
> get low turnout the election may not be valid.  While this hasn't come
> up, there is another benefit to making the pool of foundation members
> both large and reasonably active: it makes any kind of "hostile
> takeover" much harder to pull off, while actually making a "good
> takeover" easier.  If some kind of outsider wants to infiltrate they
> need to get a quorum to show up to a meeting and control a majority of
> votes there, and that is harder when there are more members required
> to constitute a quorum.  On the other hand, if somehow things get out
> of control and the community needs to take things back, then not
> having deadwood in the voting rolls means that those who are actively
> involved would find it easier to constitute a quorum at such a
> meeting.  Really, you just want the legal representation of the
> organization to match those who are actively a part of it.
>
> So, the question becomes is compulsory voting a reasonable price to
> pay for better governance.  In some (but not many) countries they feel
> strongly enough about such things that they actually fine you for
> failing to vote.
>
> If we just maintain the status quo across the board I can see less
> urgency here.  However, if we're going to go so far as to consider
> putting the Trustees at the top of the food chain wouldn't it make
> sense to also take a look at how they get elected?  And why would we
> want them maintaining multiple sets of criteria and admission
> processes for the two groups of members they'd now administer?
>
> All that said, this should also demonstrate that "re-organizing"
> Gentoo isn't really just as simple as changing a word in the Wiki
> about where Comrel appeals go.  There are a multitude of concerns that
> need to be dealt with.
>
> --
> Rich
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 8596 bytes --]

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

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@gmail.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.  Who
would you want to give a vote to, but not some kind of active role in
the community (@g.o address, some kind of access, etc)?

Perhaps I'm channeling my inner Heinlein here, but if you want to have
an official say in how things go, then you should get your hands
dirty.  If your hands really are dirty, then you should be recognized
as such.  The bar need not be set exactly where it is today, but there
should be some kind of minimum activity level if somebody wants to be
a member.  It shouldn't just be people who "like Gentoo."  Gentoo has
to work first and foremost for those who are active contributors,
since those are the people we most need to keep happy.  If people want
to have more of a say and become active contributors to have that say,
then so much the better.  Also, if you want somebody to have a role in
defining just how the operation works, then they need to demonstrate
that they're going to be an informed voter/etc.  You can't run a
volunteer-based organization on wishful thinking.

And of course anybody can post an opinion and try to influence others.
However, if you want to actually have a vote that counts, then you
need to have some kind of skin in the game.

-- 
Rich

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

[Ian Stakenvicius]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 901 bytes --]

On 14/10/16 09:46 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@gmail.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.

So it's not a class that would be instantiated in and of itself I
don't think.





[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 213 bytes --]

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

[Raymond Jennings]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1189 bytes --]

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 6:55 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 14/10/16 09:46 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@gmail.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.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1841 bytes --]

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

[Ian Stakenvicius]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1508 bytes --]

On 14/10/16 10:04 AM, Raymond Jennings wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 6:55 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@gentoo.org
> <mailto:axs@gentoo.org>> wrote:
> 
>     On 14/10/16 09:46 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>     > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@gmail.com <mailto:shentino@gmail.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?



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 213 bytes --]

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

[Raymond Jennings]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1769 bytes --]

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

> On 14/10/16 10:04 AM, Raymond Jennings wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 6:55 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@gentoo.org
> > <mailto:axs@gentoo.org>> wrote:
> >
> >     On 14/10/16 09:46 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> >     > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Raymond Jennings <
> shentino@gmail.com <mailto:shentino@gmail.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.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2639 bytes --]

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

[Ian Stakenvicius]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6526 bytes --]

On 14/10/16 08:43 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 8:08 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>> The tricky technical part here that I worry about is the Gentoo Dev
>> <-> Gentoo Staff assertion, and the hard
>> staff-must-be-foundation-member and foundation-member-must-be-staff
>> rules listed above.  Loss of foundation membership seems that it must
>> remove staff status by definition, but since dev's are staff simply
>> because they're dev's, are they still a dev when they lose their staff
>> status?
>>
> 
> Yes
> 
>> Now, there may well be good reason to force the Dev<->Foundation
>> member assumption.  However I think the Dev<->Staff thing should
>> probably be decoupled if one cannot be staff without being a
>> foundation member.
>
> [...] two different pools of voters (Foundation members and
> "Developers" (which today includes anybody with an @g.o address even
> if they don't have commit access - the proposal splits that into Staff
> and Developers)


By definition #1, if you're a dev then you're staff; staff is a
superset of dev but there's no separation there based on the
definitions listed.  There needs to be a classification for
non-staff-dev if a dev loses foundation membership due to the
staff<->foundation hard coupling and whatever rules there are that
revokes foundation membership and therefore staff status, but can
still remain a dev.

OR, don't couple dev to staff so that devs have a different (sub)set
of rules regarding foundation membership revocation.



> If we want to rationalize the leadership, we also need to deal with
> their constituencies.
> 
> Let's take for example the case of somebody booted as a Dev because of
> some CoC violation.  For the sake of simplicity let's assume it was an
> open-and-shut case perfectly handled and Comrel worked in a manner all
> would agree with.  Under our current model, they would stop being a
> dev and might be banned from IRC/etc.  However, they can still vote
> for Trustees.  Does that really make sense?  Likewise, if somebody
> leaves due to inactivity but keeps voting in Trustee elections, they
> also can remain part of the Foundation indefinitely.
> 
> I'm sure our "alumni" in general care about Gentoo, but the reality is
> that they don't really have much involvement in the day-to-day.  Do we
> want them picking our leaders/etc?  Today the functions of the
> Trustees are more limited, so it hasn't been as large an issue (though
> as has been pointed out, the legal powers of the Trustees are quite
> large and even if they wisely choose not to exercise them carelessly
> we should certainly exercise care with who we trust in this role).
> However, if we want to expand their powers in practice (setting aside
> whether they already have them legally) then we should probably think
> about who they answer to.  Suppose we did come up with a new Comrel
> GLEP and decided to put it up to a general vote for approval; right
> now we need to figure out which of the two groups of constituents to
> poll.
> 
> I don't think we need to add a lot of bureaucracy in practice to make
> this work.  In general anybody qualified to be a dev is already
> qualified to be a Foundation member, even if we make them apply for it
> currently.  While we don't automatically boot people who aren't devs I
> don't see why this would become a problem if the Foundation is
> overseeing the processes by which people leave anyway.
> 
> The only real administrative burden it would place on devs is the
> requirements to vote for a Trustee at least once every two years.  I'm
> all ears if somebody has a way to make that go away.  The practical
> issue here is the need to have a quorum under New Mexico law, so if we
> get low turnout the election may not be valid.  While this hasn't come
> up, there is another benefit to making the pool of foundation members
> both large and reasonably active: it makes any kind of "hostile
> takeover" much harder to pull off, while actually making a "good
> takeover" easier.  If some kind of outsider wants to infiltrate they
> need to get a quorum to show up to a meeting and control a majority of
> votes there, and that is harder when there are more members required
> to constitute a quorum.  On the other hand, if somehow things get out
> of control and the community needs to take things back, then not
> having deadwood in the voting rolls means that those who are actively
> involved would find it easier to constitute a quorum at such a
> meeting.  Really, you just want the legal representation of the
> organization to match those who are actively a part of it.
> 
> So, the question becomes is compulsory voting a reasonable price to
> pay for better governance.  In some (but not many) countries they feel
> strongly enough about such things that they actually fine you for
> failing to vote.
> 
> If we just maintain the status quo across the board I can see less
> urgency here.  However, if we're going to go so far as to consider
> putting the Trustees at the top of the food chain wouldn't it make
> sense to also take a look at how they get elected?  And why would we
> want them maintaining multiple sets of criteria and admission
> processes for the two groups of members they'd now administer?
> 
> All that said, this should also demonstrate that "re-organizing"
> Gentoo isn't really just as simple as changing a word in the Wiki
> about where Comrel appeals go.  There are a multitude of concerns that
> need to be dealt with.
> 


OK so my issue is that the proposal as i've read it so far (which to
be fair is only a dozen or so posts in the backlog) seems to say that
the relationship goes the other way around from what you've described
above -- in what you say above it seems that the idea here is to allow
for foundation members to be a subset of dev's but also include staff,
and be more limiting.  However it seems to me that devs are a complete
subset of staff in the proposal and therefore any change in foundation
member (and therefore staff) status automatically affects dev status,
or at least that this is an undefined state.

I don't really have an opinion of what it is that's attempting to be
achieved by the changes (at least, not yet), so long as the text makes
it clear what the classifications are and there isn't any ambiguity
between how a change in state of one classification affects another.



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 213 bytes --]

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

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 14/10/16 08:43 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>
>> [...] two different pools of voters (Foundation members and
>> "Developers" (which today includes anybody with an @g.o address even
>> if they don't have commit access - the proposal splits that into Staff
>> and Developers)
>
>
> By definition #1, if you're a dev then you're staff; staff is a
> superset of dev but there's no separation there based on the
> definitions listed.  There needs to be a classification for
> non-staff-dev if a dev loses foundation membership due to the
> staff<->foundation hard coupling and whatever rules there are that
> revokes foundation membership and therefore staff status, but can
> still remain a dev.
>
> OR, don't couple dev to staff so that devs have a different (sub)set
> of rules regarding foundation membership revocation.

My intent is that anybody who ceases to be a Foundation member also
loses membership in staff, dev, and loses commit access.

Again, the point is to keep Foundation membership strictly in-line
with what are currently today developers.  This means that the same
people who vote for Council also vote for the Trustees.  (Today staff
are also considered developers and do vote for the Council.)

> OK so my issue is that the proposal as i've read it so far (which to
> be fair is only a dozen or so posts in the backlog) seems to say that
> the relationship goes the other way around from what you've described
> above -- in what you say above it seems that the idea here is to allow
> for foundation members to be a subset of dev's but also include staff,
> and be more limiting.  However it seems to me that devs are a complete
> subset of staff in the proposal and therefore any change in foundation
> member (and therefore staff) status automatically affects dev status,
> or at least that this is an undefined state.

The sets of foundation members and staff are identical.  The set of
developers is a subset of staff.  Anything that causes you to lose
staff causes you to lose developer status.

>
> I don't really have an opinion of what it is that's attempting to be
> achieved by the changes (at least, not yet), so long as the text makes
> it clear what the classifications are and there isn't any ambiguity
> between how a change in state of one classification affects another.
>

Perhaps the explanation can use cleanup/etc.

The bottom line is to try to align the various constituencies.

I don't think the names of the groups matter a whole lot as long as
only active contributors are voting for Trustees, and if there is a
separate Council/Trustee election then the same people are voting for
both.

-- 
Rich

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

[Ian Stakenvicius]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1685 bytes --]

On 14/10/16 10:35 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> On 14/10/16 08:43 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>>
>>> [...] two different pools of voters (Foundation members and
>>> "Developers" (which today includes anybody with an @g.o address even
>>> if they don't have commit access - the proposal splits that into Staff
>>> and Developers)
>>
>>
>> By definition #1, if you're a dev then you're staff; staff is a
>> superset of dev but there's no separation there based on the
>> definitions listed.  There needs to be a classification for
>> non-staff-dev if a dev loses foundation membership due to the
>> staff<->foundation hard coupling and whatever rules there are that
>> revokes foundation membership and therefore staff status, but can
>> still remain a dev.
>>
>> OR, don't couple dev to staff so that devs have a different (sub)set
>> of rules regarding foundation membership revocation.
> 
> My intent is that anybody who ceases to be a Foundation member also
> loses membership in staff, dev, and loses commit access.
> 
> Again, the point is to keep Foundation membership strictly in-line
> with what are currently today developers.  This means that the same
> people who vote for Council also vote for the Trustees.  (Today staff
> are also considered developers and do vote for the Council.)


Excellent.  *THIS* makes things very clear.

Now, I forsee there being some push-back from a dev losing their
gentoo-repo commit rights if they abstain from voting in two
(consecutive?) Foundation elections....but that's a separate issue
that can be addressed on its own.





[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 213 bytes --]

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

[Raymond Jennings]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2211 bytes --]

This is why I oppose mooshing the roles together.

An ebuild maintaining nerd/codemonkey type may have little interest in
foundation politics, and vice versa.  We should not force them to shoulder
roles they don't want.

As long as they're willing to play nice with the community, they should be
allowed to offer their support in any way they see fit.  I don't think
putting vote quotas on anyone is going to help.

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 7:45 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 14/10/16 10:35 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> >> On 14/10/16 08:43 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> >>>
> >>> [...] two different pools of voters (Foundation members and
> >>> "Developers" (which today includes anybody with an @g.o address even
> >>> if they don't have commit access - the proposal splits that into Staff
> >>> and Developers)
> >>
> >>
> >> By definition #1, if you're a dev then you're staff; staff is a
> >> superset of dev but there's no separation there based on the
> >> definitions listed.  There needs to be a classification for
> >> non-staff-dev if a dev loses foundation membership due to the
> >> staff<->foundation hard coupling and whatever rules there are that
> >> revokes foundation membership and therefore staff status, but can
> >> still remain a dev.
> >>
> >> OR, don't couple dev to staff so that devs have a different (sub)set
> >> of rules regarding foundation membership revocation.
> >
> > My intent is that anybody who ceases to be a Foundation member also
> > loses membership in staff, dev, and loses commit access.
> >
> > Again, the point is to keep Foundation membership strictly in-line
> > with what are currently today developers.  This means that the same
> > people who vote for Council also vote for the Trustees.  (Today staff
> > are also considered developers and do vote for the Council.)
>
>
> Excellent.  *THIS* makes things very clear.
>
> Now, I forsee there being some push-back from a dev losing their
> gentoo-repo commit rights if they abstain from voting in two
> (consecutive?) Foundation elections....but that's a separate issue
> that can be addressed on its own.
>
>
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2943 bytes --]

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

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is why I oppose mooshing the roles together.
>
> An ebuild maintaining nerd/codemonkey type may have little interest in
> foundation politics, and vice versa.  We should not force them to shoulder
> roles they don't want.
>
> As long as they're willing to play nice with the community, they should be
> allowed to offer their support in any way they see fit.  I don't think
> putting vote quotas on anyone is going to help.
>

It is a valid argument, but it does then lead to the situation where
we have diverging foundation and dev membership, which means that if
you post the same question to both groups, you could get different
answers, and thus conflict.

However, this could be mitigated a great deal if we still purged
foundation members who are no longer active staff/devs, while keeping
foundation membership optional for those who are, and if somebody
loses foundation membership due to not voting they could ask to be
allowed back in.  Then while somebody might not be voting for who the
Trustees are, they can't really complain because they need only ask
for the ability to vote for them, and crisis could be averted.

-- 
Rich

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

[NP-Hardass]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3616 bytes --]

On 10/14/2016 11:15 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This is why I oppose mooshing the roles together.
>>
>> An ebuild maintaining nerd/codemonkey type may have little interest in
>> foundation politics, and vice versa.  We should not force them to shoulder
>> roles they don't want.
>>
>> As long as they're willing to play nice with the community, they should be
>> allowed to offer their support in any way they see fit.  I don't think
>> putting vote quotas on anyone is going to help.
>>
> 
> It is a valid argument, but it does then lead to the situation where
> we have diverging foundation and dev membership, which means that if
> you post the same question to both groups, you could get different
> answers, and thus conflict.
> 
> However, this could be mitigated a great deal if we still purged
> foundation members who are no longer active staff/devs, while keeping
> foundation membership optional for those who are, and if somebody
> loses foundation membership due to not voting they could ask to be
> allowed back in.  Then while somebody might not be voting for who the
> Trustees are, they can't really complain because they need only ask
> for the ability to vote for them, and crisis could be averted.
> 

What exactly are the requirements for quorum as necessitated by NM law?
How do explicit abstains from a vote affect that if they do?   If
explicit abstention is allowed, then make voting completely compulsory,
and those that do not feel that they have a desire to put a filled
ballot forward are required to submit a ballot of abstention.   This
might alleviate some of the concerns of developers being forced to vote
for trustees, while still putting developers in a position where they
have to weigh what degree they wish to weigh in on such a matter.
IANAL, but my suspicion is that the law only mandates that a quorum be
present, not that a quorum vote one way or another.  According to this
document [1], abstentions only affect votes where the
quorum/majority/unanimity is required of *present* voters, thus votes
where only quorum/majority/unanimity of total votes is required,
abstention is removed entirely from the assessment of quorum for the
decision itself.

Note, in the document from NM [2], I couldn't find specific reference to
this (and we should speak to a lawyer), but there are some points where
quorum is discussed of present members and some where it is discussed in
relation to the entirety of the body.

TL;DR: It might be possible to force all to vote, and but permit
abstentions in the case of the trustees election.  This might allow an
easier time aligning the bodies while not forcing developers to forcibly
vote where they might not have an opinion.

Please note, the above might be worth looking into regardless of whether
we align the voting bodies as it might make achieving a quorum in future
votes more attainable.



Regardless of quorum requirements, if we align the Foundation and Staff
memberships, and make voting compulsory (within a 2 year period), it
might be wise to loosen the voting periods to make it easier for members
to vote, i.e. if voting is open for 2 weeks currently, make it open for
4 weeks as a month should be ample time to cast a vote, whether it be
abstention (if allowed) or a filled ballot.



-- 
NP-Hardass

[1] http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#6
[2]
http://www.nmag.gov/uploads/files/Publications/ComplianceGuides/Open%20Meetings%20Act%20Compliance%20Guide%202015.pdf


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

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

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5018 bytes --]

On 10/14/2016 02:59 AM, Raymond Jennings wrote:
> Personally I think the only requirement for being a foundation member is
> agreement to adhere to the CoC, and proof of contribution and
> involvement.  I do not think the contribution bar should be very high,
> as anyone with a purple and green heart should be welcome as a
> foundation member in my opinion, and anyone who loves gentoo and can
> behave decently enough not to damage it should be welcome.
> 
Ya, the staff quiz reasoning is just to make sure they know enough about
Gentoo and our policies to work well in the group.

> I also disagree that loss of membership in one should get you booted out
> of the other.   I will say, however, that if a person is forcibly
> removed from staff, the foundation's trustees should be notified.  If it
> was due to a CoC violation then there's a strong cause to have them
> removed as a foundation member.  If it was due to technical incompetence
> or due to breaking the tree one times too many, but they still can
> contribute in other ways, then no I don't think its proper to remove them.
> 
The way it's suggested to work for devs is commit (dev) access can be
revoked by council, they'd still remain as staff (dev would basically be
a 'flag').

> Furthermore, I don't think we should limit gentoo project staff roles,
> or foundation membership, to developers.  There are plenty of people who
> care about Gentoo who aren't technically inclined enough to be developers.
> 
> How about this:
> 
> 1.  The baseline role is "Gentoo loyalist" of some sort
> 
> To become a loyalist, you simply have to agree to the CoC.  This could
> even be an abstract social construct and only evaluated as needed.
> 
> A CoC violation is punishable, and will cause the person's "loyal"
> status to be revoked or suspended.  This part *automatically* suspends
> or revokes any other official roles, be it foundation member, developer,
> or staff.
> 
> 2.  Foundation member
> 
> To become a foundation member, you must be in good standing wrt the CoC,
> and make enough of a contribution to Gentoo that the trustees see fit to
> recruit you as a foundation member.  The standard they will use to judge
> you is being passionate enough about gentoo to be helpful in some way.
> 
> If you become "dead weight" or prove that you've lost your passion for
> gentoo, you get discharged as a member.
> 
> 3.  Developer
> 
> A developer is someone who has passed the ebuild quiz and demonstrated
> technical competence to where they can be trusted with direct access to
> the portage tree.
> 
> Technical incompetence, breaking the tree, violating project protocols,
> and the like can get your dev status yanked either temporarily or
> permanently or indefinitely.
> 
> 4.  Staff
> 
> A staff is anyone with any kind of authority or management role within
> gentoo.  You must take and pass the staff quiz.
> 
> Once you pass the staff quiz, you can be granted privileges on bugzilla,
> the forums, mailing lists, access to privileged resources on infra, etc.
> 
> If you screw up, you can be destaffed.
> 
> ----
> 
> I think that developer, staff, and foundation member should be kept
> separately toggled by circumstance.  Only for a CoC violation should
> there be any sort of "cascade" reaction that gets you booted from
> multiple roles automatically.
> 
> 5.  Council
> 
> A council member is someone who has been 
> 
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org
> <mailto:rich0@gentoo.org>> wrote:
> 
>     On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 7:44 PM, NP-Hardass <NP-Hardass@gentoo.org
>     <mailto:NP-Hardass@gentoo.org>> wrote:
>     > The proposal does not make all members Gentoo staff.
> 
>     Then, IMO, it isn't an improvement.  Certainly my intent was for it to
>     make all Foundation members Gentoo staff.
> 
>     I think that all Foundation members should be staff, and all staff
>     should be Foundation members.  If somebody isn't qualified to be in
>     one, they shouldn't be in the other.  If somebody doesn't want to be
>     in one, they shouldn't be in the other.
> 
>     I'm not suggesting that there should be some kind of onerous
>     requirement to be staff.
> 
>     I think one of the biggest problems that you need to solve if you want
>     to try to reform the meta-structure is that we have multiple
>     constituencies right now.  My goal would be to fix that.  If somebody
>     isn't active enough to be considered staff, then they shouldn't be
>     voting on the governance of the distro.  If they're going to be voting
>     on governance, then they should be well-versed in how things work.
> 
>     --
>     Rich
> 
> 

I'm not totally sure about this because the main reason for reforming
the metastructure is to have a unified electorate and management
structure.  As long as we can use that I think it may work.

-- 
-- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

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

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4168 bytes --]

On 10/14/2016 10:43 AM, NP-Hardass wrote:
> On 10/14/2016 11:15 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> This is why I oppose mooshing the roles together.
>>>
>>> An ebuild maintaining nerd/codemonkey type may have little interest in
>>> foundation politics, and vice versa.  We should not force them to shoulder
>>> roles they don't want.
>>>
>>> As long as they're willing to play nice with the community, they should be
>>> allowed to offer their support in any way they see fit.  I don't think
>>> putting vote quotas on anyone is going to help.
>>>
>>
>> It is a valid argument, but it does then lead to the situation where
>> we have diverging foundation and dev membership, which means that if
>> you post the same question to both groups, you could get different
>> answers, and thus conflict.
>>
>> However, this could be mitigated a great deal if we still purged
>> foundation members who are no longer active staff/devs, while keeping
>> foundation membership optional for those who are, and if somebody
>> loses foundation membership due to not voting they could ask to be
>> allowed back in.  Then while somebody might not be voting for who the
>> Trustees are, they can't really complain because they need only ask
>> for the ability to vote for them, and crisis could be averted.
>>
> 
> What exactly are the requirements for quorum as necessitated by NM law?
> How do explicit abstains from a vote affect that if they do?   If
> explicit abstention is allowed, then make voting completely compulsory,
> and those that do not feel that they have a desire to put a filled
> ballot forward are required to submit a ballot of abstention.   This
> might alleviate some of the concerns of developers being forced to vote
> for trustees, while still putting developers in a position where they
> have to weigh what degree they wish to weigh in on such a matter.
> IANAL, but my suspicion is that the law only mandates that a quorum be
> present, not that a quorum vote one way or another.  According to this
> document [1], abstentions only affect votes where the
> quorum/majority/unanimity is required of *present* voters, thus votes
> where only quorum/majority/unanimity of total votes is required,
> abstention is removed entirely from the assessment of quorum for the
> decision itself.
> 
I think I found it.

http://www.sos.state.nm.us/uploads/files/Corporations/ch53Art11.pdf
page 93 - 53-11-32

I wasn't able to find any info on abstaining.  As far as I could tell a
'rolling quorum' (just those present) can't make decisions.

http://www.nmag.gov/uploads/files/Publications/ComplianceGuides/Open%20Meetings%20Act%20Compliance%20Guide%202015.pdf

> Note, in the document from NM [2], I couldn't find specific reference to
> this (and we should speak to a lawyer), but there are some points where
> quorum is discussed of present members and some where it is discussed in
> relation to the entirety of the body.
> 
> TL;DR: It might be possible to force all to vote, and but permit
> abstentions in the case of the trustees election.  This might allow an
> easier time aligning the bodies while not forcing developers to forcibly
> vote where they might not have an opinion.
> 
> Please note, the above might be worth looking into regardless of whether
> we align the voting bodies as it might make achieving a quorum in future
> votes more attainable.
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of quorum requirements, if we align the Foundation and Staff
> memberships, and make voting compulsory (within a 2 year period), it
> might be wise to loosen the voting periods to make it easier for members
> to vote, i.e. if voting is open for 2 weeks currently, make it open for
> 4 weeks as a month should be ample time to cast a vote, whether it be
> abstention (if allowed) or a filled ballot.
> 
> 
> 
Altering what constitutes a quorum can only be done by altering the
articles of incorporation (as far as I can tell).  We might be able to
extend the voting period though.

-- 
-- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

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

[NP-Hardass]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5099 bytes --]

On 10/14/2016 12:20 PM, Matthew Thode wrote:
> On 10/14/2016 10:43 AM, NP-Hardass wrote:
>> On 10/14/2016 11:15 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> This is why I oppose mooshing the roles together.
>>>>
>>>> An ebuild maintaining nerd/codemonkey type may have little interest in
>>>> foundation politics, and vice versa.  We should not force them to shoulder
>>>> roles they don't want.
>>>>
>>>> As long as they're willing to play nice with the community, they should be
>>>> allowed to offer their support in any way they see fit.  I don't think
>>>> putting vote quotas on anyone is going to help.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is a valid argument, but it does then lead to the situation where
>>> we have diverging foundation and dev membership, which means that if
>>> you post the same question to both groups, you could get different
>>> answers, and thus conflict.
>>>
>>> However, this could be mitigated a great deal if we still purged
>>> foundation members who are no longer active staff/devs, while keeping
>>> foundation membership optional for those who are, and if somebody
>>> loses foundation membership due to not voting they could ask to be
>>> allowed back in.  Then while somebody might not be voting for who the
>>> Trustees are, they can't really complain because they need only ask
>>> for the ability to vote for them, and crisis could be averted.
>>>
>>
>> What exactly are the requirements for quorum as necessitated by NM law?
>> How do explicit abstains from a vote affect that if they do?   If
>> explicit abstention is allowed, then make voting completely compulsory,
>> and those that do not feel that they have a desire to put a filled
>> ballot forward are required to submit a ballot of abstention.   This
>> might alleviate some of the concerns of developers being forced to vote
>> for trustees, while still putting developers in a position where they
>> have to weigh what degree they wish to weigh in on such a matter.
>> IANAL, but my suspicion is that the law only mandates that a quorum be
>> present, not that a quorum vote one way or another.  According to this
>> document [1], abstentions only affect votes where the
>> quorum/majority/unanimity is required of *present* voters, thus votes
>> where only quorum/majority/unanimity of total votes is required,
>> abstention is removed entirely from the assessment of quorum for the
>> decision itself.
>>
> I think I found it.
> 
> http://www.sos.state.nm.us/uploads/files/Corporations/ch53Art11.pdf
> page 93 - 53-11-32
> 
> I wasn't able to find any info on abstaining.  As far as I could tell a
> 'rolling quorum' (just those present) can't make decisions.
> 
> http://www.nmag.gov/uploads/files/Publications/ComplianceGuides/Open%20Meetings%20Act%20Compliance%20Guide%202015.pdf
> 
My understanding (once again IANAL) of rolling quorum (along with some
outside reading) is that it is when the discussions for a quorum are not
held publicly during the meeting, but outside of the public meeting [1]
"The quorum doesn’t need to be in the same room to hold a meeting; they
might discuss public business in a series of e-mails or phone calls,
over several days. This is called a rolling quorum, and it’s illegal
unless the participants follow all the requirements of the Open Meetings
Act."

I should note, both of those links, the one from the previous email on
the Open Meetings Act and [1] might just be for government/public
organizations and not corporations.  I'm really not sure.  I was just
doing my best to find something NM related XD
>> Note, in the document from NM [2], I couldn't find specific reference to
>> this (and we should speak to a lawyer), but there are some points where
>> quorum is discussed of present members and some where it is discussed in
>> relation to the entirety of the body.
>>
>> TL;DR: It might be possible to force all to vote, and but permit
>> abstentions in the case of the trustees election.  This might allow an
>> easier time aligning the bodies while not forcing developers to forcibly
>> vote where they might not have an opinion.
>>
>> Please note, the above might be worth looking into regardless of whether
>> we align the voting bodies as it might make achieving a quorum in future
>> votes more attainable.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regardless of quorum requirements, if we align the Foundation and Staff
>> memberships, and make voting compulsory (within a 2 year period), it
>> might be wise to loosen the voting periods to make it easier for members
>> to vote, i.e. if voting is open for 2 weeks currently, make it open for
>> 4 weeks as a month should be ample time to cast a vote, whether it be
>> abstention (if allowed) or a filled ballot.
>>
>>
>>
> Altering what constitutes a quorum can only be done by altering the
> articles of incorporation (as far as I can tell).  We might be able to
> extend the voting period though.
> 


-- 
NP-Hardass

[1] http://nmfog.org/public-meeting/


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

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

[NP-Hardass]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5523 bytes --]

On 10/14/2016 12:33 PM, NP-Hardass wrote:
> On 10/14/2016 12:20 PM, Matthew Thode wrote:
>> On 10/14/2016 10:43 AM, NP-Hardass wrote:
>>> On 10/14/2016 11:15 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> This is why I oppose mooshing the roles together.
>>>>>
>>>>> An ebuild maintaining nerd/codemonkey type may have little interest in
>>>>> foundation politics, and vice versa.  We should not force them to shoulder
>>>>> roles they don't want.
>>>>>
>>>>> As long as they're willing to play nice with the community, they should be
>>>>> allowed to offer their support in any way they see fit.  I don't think
>>>>> putting vote quotas on anyone is going to help.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is a valid argument, but it does then lead to the situation where
>>>> we have diverging foundation and dev membership, which means that if
>>>> you post the same question to both groups, you could get different
>>>> answers, and thus conflict.
>>>>
>>>> However, this could be mitigated a great deal if we still purged
>>>> foundation members who are no longer active staff/devs, while keeping
>>>> foundation membership optional for those who are, and if somebody
>>>> loses foundation membership due to not voting they could ask to be
>>>> allowed back in.  Then while somebody might not be voting for who the
>>>> Trustees are, they can't really complain because they need only ask
>>>> for the ability to vote for them, and crisis could be averted.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What exactly are the requirements for quorum as necessitated by NM law?
>>> How do explicit abstains from a vote affect that if they do?   If
>>> explicit abstention is allowed, then make voting completely compulsory,
>>> and those that do not feel that they have a desire to put a filled
>>> ballot forward are required to submit a ballot of abstention.   This
>>> might alleviate some of the concerns of developers being forced to vote
>>> for trustees, while still putting developers in a position where they
>>> have to weigh what degree they wish to weigh in on such a matter.
>>> IANAL, but my suspicion is that the law only mandates that a quorum be
>>> present, not that a quorum vote one way or another.  According to this
>>> document [1], abstentions only affect votes where the
>>> quorum/majority/unanimity is required of *present* voters, thus votes
>>> where only quorum/majority/unanimity of total votes is required,
>>> abstention is removed entirely from the assessment of quorum for the
>>> decision itself.
>>>
>> I think I found it.
>>
>> http://www.sos.state.nm.us/uploads/files/Corporations/ch53Art11.pdf
>> page 93 - 53-11-32
>>
>> I wasn't able to find any info on abstaining.  As far as I could tell a
>> 'rolling quorum' (just those present) can't make decisions.
>>
>> http://www.nmag.gov/uploads/files/Publications/ComplianceGuides/Open%20Meetings%20Act%20Compliance%20Guide%202015.pdf
>>
> My understanding (once again IANAL) of rolling quorum (along with some
> outside reading) is that it is when the discussions for a quorum are not
> held publicly during the meeting, but outside of the public meeting [1]
> "The quorum doesn’t need to be in the same room to hold a meeting; they
> might discuss public business in a series of e-mails or phone calls,
> over several days. This is called a rolling quorum, and it’s illegal
> unless the participants follow all the requirements of the Open Meetings
> Act."
> 
> I should note, both of those links, the one from the previous email on
> the Open Meetings Act and [1] might just be for government/public
> organizations and not corporations.  I'm really not sure.  I was just
> doing my best to find something NM related XD
>>> Note, in the document from NM [2], I couldn't find specific reference to
>>> this (and we should speak to a lawyer), but there are some points where
>>> quorum is discussed of present members and some where it is discussed in
>>> relation to the entirety of the body.
>>>
>>> TL;DR: It might be possible to force all to vote, and but permit
>>> abstentions in the case of the trustees election.  This might allow an
>>> easier time aligning the bodies while not forcing developers to forcibly
>>> vote where they might not have an opinion.
>>>
>>> Please note, the above might be worth looking into regardless of whether
>>> we align the voting bodies as it might make achieving a quorum in future
>>> votes more attainable.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regardless of quorum requirements, if we align the Foundation and Staff
>>> memberships, and make voting compulsory (within a 2 year period), it
>>> might be wise to loosen the voting periods to make it easier for members
>>> to vote, i.e. if voting is open for 2 weeks currently, make it open for
>>> 4 weeks as a month should be ample time to cast a vote, whether it be
>>> abstention (if allowed) or a filled ballot.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Altering what constitutes a quorum can only be done by altering the
>> articles of incorporation (as far as I can tell).  We might be able to
>> extend the voting period though.
>>
> 
> 

As an addendum:  I think these two documents are what we'd want to look
at (For profit and ultimately non-profit corps)

http://www.sos.state.nm.us/uploads/files/Corporations/ch53Art11.pdf
http://www.sos.state.nm.us/uploads/files/Corporations/ch53Art8.pdf

I'll see what I can find in those later.


-- 
NP-Hardass


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

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

[Robin H. Johnson]

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 12:51:45AM -0700, Raymond Jennings wrote:
> forwarding and aliases ;)
At that point, all it means is that a given person was a member of X
group at some point presently or in the past, and it does not accurately
reflect their present status.

For example, I'd have forwards on all of these...

The hats I have now:
@infra.gentoo.org
@trustee.gentoo.org
@dev.gentoo.org

The hats I have worn in the past:
@staff.gentoo.org
@council.gentoo.org
@ombudsman.gentoo.org
@releng.gentoo.org
(and probably a few more that I've forgotten about)

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux: Dev, Infra Lead, Foundation Trustee & Treasurer
E-Mail   : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85
GnuPG FP : 7D0B3CEB E9B85B1F 825BCECF EE05E6F6 A48F6136

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

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 744 bytes --]

On Friday, October 14, 2016 4:57:37 PM EDT Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 12:51:45AM -0700, Raymond Jennings wrote:
> > forwarding and aliases ;)
> 
> At that point, all it means is that a given person was a member of X
> group at some point presently or in the past, and it does not accurately
> reflect their present status.

Typically that was done via adding roles/groups to your signature.  That was 
never a requirement nor any standard. Maybe it should be a requirement. Anyone 
with a @gentoo.org is required to maintain a list of projects they are a 
member of as part of their email signature. Along with the GPG signing 
requirement.

Such as

--
Dev/Staff Name
proj1/proj2/proj3/....


-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 163 bytes --]

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

[Raymond Jennings]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1580 bytes --]

A developer should always be able to say "no vote because I'm too busy
coding and don't give a rat's ass about foundation politics" in a trustee
election.

I am wary of putting more burdens on a developer than they are prepared
for, and I oppose requiring developers to be foundation members or vice
versa or staff or vice versa.

This is why any requirements common to dev/staff/foundmember should be
moved to a base role called "supporter" or something, and anything that is
common (CoC agreement and adherance for example) should be consolidated
into a common baseline, and then we can tack on whatever specifics might
apply to the role in question, which will probably vary between
staff/dev/foundmember.

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 10:03 AM, William L. Thomson Jr. <wlt-ml@o-sinc.com>
wrote:

> On Friday, October 14, 2016 4:57:37 PM EDT Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 12:51:45AM -0700, Raymond Jennings wrote:
> > > forwarding and aliases ;)
> >
> > At that point, all it means is that a given person was a member of X
> > group at some point presently or in the past, and it does not accurately
> > reflect their present status.
>
> Typically that was done via adding roles/groups to your signature.  That
> was
> never a requirement nor any standard. Maybe it should be a requirement.
> Anyone
> with a @gentoo.org is required to maintain a list of projects they are a
> member of as part of their email signature. Along with the GPG signing
> requirement.
>
> Such as
>
> --
> Dev/Staff Name
> proj1/proj2/proj3/....
>
>
> --
> William L. Thomson Jr.
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2178 bytes --]

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

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1192 bytes --]

On Friday, October 14, 2016 11:28:18 AM EDT Raymond Jennings wrote:
> A developer should always be able to say "no vote because I'm too busy
> coding and don't give a rat's ass about foundation politics" in a trustee
> election.

True, but it really does not take long to vote. That is really the only 
obligation, annually. I can understand anyone objecting to membership, but the 
burden is VERY little if any. Plus not really required to vote, just required 
if you want to remain a member.

> I am wary of putting more burdens on a developer than they are prepared
> for, and I oppose requiring developers to be foundation members or vice
> versa or staff or vice versa.

I agree.

Part of the idea is if the Foundation was more functional and played more of a 
role in Gentoo. Developers may have more interest as they may have benefit.

Say your working on some hardware platform. The Foundation makes a deal with 
that vendor. Now the developer has access to hardware they may not otherwise. 
That may give the developer more interest and reason to participate in the 
Foundation. If their involvement is conducive to development.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 163 bytes --]

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

[Raymond Jennings]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1396 bytes --]

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 11:55 AM, William L. Thomson Jr. <wlt-ml@o-sinc.com>
wrote:

> On Friday, October 14, 2016 11:28:18 AM EDT Raymond Jennings wrote:
> > A developer should always be able to say "no vote because I'm too busy
> > coding and don't give a rat's ass about foundation politics" in a trustee
> > election.
>
> True, but it really does not take long to vote. That is really the only
> obligation, annually.


That's what I mean, a developer's vote should always be able to be
"abstain" if they wish.


> I can understand anyone objecting to membership, but the
> burden is VERY little if any. Plus not really required to vote, just
> required
> if you want to remain a member.
>
> > I am wary of putting more burdens on a developer than they are prepared
> > for, and I oppose requiring developers to be foundation members or vice
> > versa or staff or vice versa.
>
> I agree.
>
> Part of the idea is if the Foundation was more functional and played more
> of a
> role in Gentoo. Developers may have more interest as they may have benefit.
>
> Say your working on some hardware platform. The Foundation makes a deal
> with
> that vendor. Now the developer has access to hardware they may not
> otherwise.
> That may give the developer more interest and reason to participate in the
> Foundation. If their involvement is conducive to development.
>
> --
> William L. Thomson Jr.
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2060 bytes --]

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

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1233 bytes --]

On Friday, October 14, 2016 11:57:01 AM EDT Raymond Jennings wrote:
>.>
> > True, but it really does not take long to vote. That is really the only
> > obligation, annually.
> 
> That's what I mean, a developer's vote should always be able to be
> "abstain" if they wish.

That is always the case with any voting, its most always elective.

However maybe active developers can abstain from voting for the entire time 
they are a developer and not lose membership. Most discussion is around after 
2 non votes you lose membership, maybe after another year, so 3 years of 
inactivity.

If someone is still a developer, but has not voted in 3 years. They could 
still be a member of the foundation, as long as they are a developer. They 
could abstain from Foundation voting the entire time they are a developer, yet 
still have membership.

Maybe the lose membership after 2 years of non voting plus a 3rd to be nice, 
should apply to "supporters" or regular foundation members who are not part of 
Gentoo, dev/staff/other.


In an ideal world people want to be part of the Foundation and active there. 
If the Foundation helped further development and the project in general.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 163 bytes --]

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

[Raymond Jennings]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1461 bytes --]

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 12:19 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. <wlt-ml@o-sinc.com>
wrote:

> On Friday, October 14, 2016 11:57:01 AM EDT Raymond Jennings wrote:
> >.>
> > > True, but it really does not take long to vote. That is really the only
> > > obligation, annually.
> >
> > That's what I mean, a developer's vote should always be able to be
> > "abstain" if they wish.
>
> That is always the case with any voting, its most always elective.
>
> However maybe active developers can abstain from voting for the entire time
> they are a developer and not lose membership. Most discussion is around
> after
> 2 non votes you lose membership, maybe after another year, so 3 years of
> inactivity.
>

My point is that if they show up to vote and their vote is "abstain", it
should count as if they voted for someone.


> If someone is still a developer, but has not voted in 3 years. They could
> still be a member of the foundation, as long as they are a developer. They
> could abstain from Foundation voting the entire time they are a developer,
> yet
> still have membership.
>
> Maybe the lose membership after 2 years of non voting plus a 3rd to be
> nice,
> should apply to "supporters" or regular foundation members who are not
> part of
> Gentoo, dev/staff/other.
>
>
> In an ideal world people want to be part of the Foundation and active
> there.
> If the Foundation helped further development and the project in general.
>
> --
> William L. Thomson Jr.
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2120 bytes --]

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

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 903 bytes --]

On Friday, October 14, 2016 12:23:04 PM EDT Raymond Jennings wrote:
>
> My point is that if they show up to vote and their vote is "abstain", it
> should count as if they voted for someone.

Oh yes, to remain active sure. Though could just not require them to vote, so 
a no vote is the same as abstain. But that might be more confusing.

Your basically proposing an additional option be added to any ballot of 
"Abstain"

Good point, as that could apply to anyone. I do not think that has been 
mentioned thus far. One is still voting, just not casting it any direction, 
going neutral.

That would really apply to "supporters" to retain their status, voting 
annually, but not taking a position either way on their vote. Also to dev/
staff/etc if they carry forward the auto membership expiration after 3yrs 
inactivity, 2 non vote, 3rd grace period.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 163 bytes --]

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

[Raymond Jennings]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1302 bytes --]

You got it.

My main point is that there should be a way for foundation
members/devs/whatever to prove a) they're interested enough to show good
attendance at voting, but b) without having to get politically inclined if
they can't be arsed to do anything but codemonkey type stuff or what have
you.

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 12:34 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. <wlt-ml@o-sinc.com>
wrote:

> On Friday, October 14, 2016 12:23:04 PM EDT Raymond Jennings wrote:
> >
> > My point is that if they show up to vote and their vote is "abstain", it
> > should count as if they voted for someone.
>
> Oh yes, to remain active sure. Though could just not require them to vote,
> so
> a no vote is the same as abstain. But that might be more confusing.
>
> Your basically proposing an additional option be added to any ballot of
> "Abstain"
>
> Good point, as that could apply to anyone. I do not think that has been
> mentioned thus far. One is still voting, just not casting it any direction,
> going neutral.
>
> That would really apply to "supporters" to retain their status, voting
> annually, but not taking a position either way on their vote. Also to dev/
> staff/etc if they carry forward the auto membership expiration after 3yrs
> inactivity, 2 non vote, 3rd grace period.
>
> --
> William L. Thomson Jr.
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1799 bytes --]

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

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1109 bytes --]

On Friday, October 14, 2016 12:36:23 PM EDT Raymond Jennings wrote:
> You got it.
> 
> My main point is that there should be a way for foundation
> members/devs/whatever to prove a) they're interested enough to show good
> attendance at voting, but b) without having to get politically inclined if
> they can't be arsed to do anything but codemonkey type stuff or what have
> you.
> 

Yes, could go even further.

Developers/staff/etc automatically have an  "Abstain" vote while they are 
active in Gentoo. They can literally avoid the foundation entirely but still 
be an active member. Not even required to "Abstain" as it is an auto vote. 
Though if they choose to vote, they can always change the default.

That would not apply to "supporters". Just a convenient thing for those within 
Gentoo to not have to be bothered with Foundation voting, while retaining 
active membership.

Good points, I do not think they had been brought up!

Anything that makes Developers/staff/etc life better in Gentoo I am all for! 
Less bureaucracy more automation!

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 163 bytes --]

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

[Ian Stakenvicius]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1464 bytes --]

On 14/10/16 03:40 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> On Friday, October 14, 2016 12:36:23 PM EDT Raymond Jennings wrote:
>> You got it.
>>
>> My main point is that there should be a way for foundation
>> members/devs/whatever to prove a) they're interested enough to show good
>> attendance at voting, but b) without having to get politically inclined if
>> they can't be arsed to do anything but codemonkey type stuff or what have
>> you.
>>
> 
> Yes, could go even further.
> 
> Developers/staff/etc automatically have an  "Abstain" vote while they are 
> active in Gentoo. They can literally avoid the foundation entirely but still 
> be an active member. Not even required to "Abstain" as it is an auto vote. 
> Though if they choose to vote, they can always change the default.
> 
> That would not apply to "supporters". Just a convenient thing for those within 
> Gentoo to not have to be bothered with Foundation voting, while retaining 
> active membership.
> 
> Good points, I do not think they had been brought up!
> 
> Anything that makes Developers/staff/etc life better in Gentoo I am all for! 
> Less bureaucracy more automation!
> 

This would likely provide the smallest overall impact of these changes
while still accomplishing the goals.  Of course it's still
questionable as to whether or not this meets legal requirements for
the elections (quorum, turnouts, etc) so it'll need to be worded
carefully.





[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 213 bytes --]

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

[Roy Bamford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1850 bytes --]

On 2016.10.14 16:43, NP-Hardass wrote:

[snip]
> 
> What exactly are the requirements for quorum as necessitated by NM
> law?

www.sos.state.nm.us/uploads/files/Corporations/ch53Art8.pdf
See 58-8-16.  

I have a 2008 version that says substantially the same thing but the 
figure is 1/3.

The important new news in that paragraph is that the Foundation
can determine what a quorum of members is and write it into
the bylaws.  That's in the 2008 version too.

That link, as modified by case law, is the set of statutes that
the foundation needs to comply with in New Mexico.

[snip]
 
> Regardless of quorum requirements, if we align the Foundation and
> Staff
> memberships, and make voting compulsory (within a 2 year period), it
> might be wise to loosen the voting periods to make it easier for
> members
> to vote, i.e. if voting is open for 2 weeks currently, make it open
> for
> 4 weeks as a month should be ample time to cast a vote, whether it be
> abstention (if allowed) or a filled ballot.

The trustee electoral process is that a snapshot of the members list
is taken after new members have been admitted at the May trustees 
meeting.  This is the list of potential candidates and voters.
Its called setting the recording date.

A four week nomination period follows, with a few days of a gap to 
prepare the ballot before a four week voting period starts.
Voting is concluded and results published in time for for the newly
elected trustees ta take their seats at the Annual General Meeting
in August.
For the sake of completeness, when there is no contest, 
candidates are elected unopposed, no vote happens and nobody
is dropped from the membership.  
   
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> NP-Hardass
> 

-- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) a member of
elections
gentoo-ops
forum-mods

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

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

[Daniel Campbell]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7086 bytes --]

On 10/14/2016 07:17 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 14/10/16 08:43 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 8:08 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> The tricky technical part here that I worry about is the Gentoo Dev
>>> <-> Gentoo Staff assertion, and the hard
>>> staff-must-be-foundation-member and foundation-member-must-be-staff
>>> rules listed above.  Loss of foundation membership seems that it must
>>> remove staff status by definition, but since dev's are staff simply
>>> because they're dev's, are they still a dev when they lose their staff
>>> status?
>>>
>>
>> Yes
>>
>>> Now, there may well be good reason to force the Dev<->Foundation
>>> member assumption.  However I think the Dev<->Staff thing should
>>> probably be decoupled if one cannot be staff without being a
>>> foundation member.
>>
>> [...] two different pools of voters (Foundation members and
>> "Developers" (which today includes anybody with an @g.o address even
>> if they don't have commit access - the proposal splits that into Staff
>> and Developers)
> 
> 
> By definition #1, if you're a dev then you're staff; staff is a
> superset of dev but there's no separation there based on the
> definitions listed.  There needs to be a classification for
> non-staff-dev if a dev loses foundation membership due to the
> staff<->foundation hard coupling and whatever rules there are that
> revokes foundation membership and therefore staff status, but can
> still remain a dev.
> 
> OR, don't couple dev to staff so that devs have a different (sub)set
> of rules regarding foundation membership revocation.
> 
> 
> 
>> If we want to rationalize the leadership, we also need to deal with
>> their constituencies.
>>
>> Let's take for example the case of somebody booted as a Dev because of
>> some CoC violation.  For the sake of simplicity let's assume it was an
>> open-and-shut case perfectly handled and Comrel worked in a manner all
>> would agree with.  Under our current model, they would stop being a
>> dev and might be banned from IRC/etc.  However, they can still vote
>> for Trustees.  Does that really make sense?  Likewise, if somebody
>> leaves due to inactivity but keeps voting in Trustee elections, they
>> also can remain part of the Foundation indefinitely.
>>
>> I'm sure our "alumni" in general care about Gentoo, but the reality is
>> that they don't really have much involvement in the day-to-day.  Do we
>> want them picking our leaders/etc?  Today the functions of the
>> Trustees are more limited, so it hasn't been as large an issue (though
>> as has been pointed out, the legal powers of the Trustees are quite
>> large and even if they wisely choose not to exercise them carelessly
>> we should certainly exercise care with who we trust in this role).
>> However, if we want to expand their powers in practice (setting aside
>> whether they already have them legally) then we should probably think
>> about who they answer to.  Suppose we did come up with a new Comrel
>> GLEP and decided to put it up to a general vote for approval; right
>> now we need to figure out which of the two groups of constituents to
>> poll.
>>
>> I don't think we need to add a lot of bureaucracy in practice to make
>> this work.  In general anybody qualified to be a dev is already
>> qualified to be a Foundation member, even if we make them apply for it
>> currently.  While we don't automatically boot people who aren't devs I
>> don't see why this would become a problem if the Foundation is
>> overseeing the processes by which people leave anyway.
>>
>> The only real administrative burden it would place on devs is the
>> requirements to vote for a Trustee at least once every two years.  I'm
>> all ears if somebody has a way to make that go away.  The practical
>> issue here is the need to have a quorum under New Mexico law, so if we
>> get low turnout the election may not be valid.  While this hasn't come
>> up, there is another benefit to making the pool of foundation members
>> both large and reasonably active: it makes any kind of "hostile
>> takeover" much harder to pull off, while actually making a "good
>> takeover" easier.  If some kind of outsider wants to infiltrate they
>> need to get a quorum to show up to a meeting and control a majority of
>> votes there, and that is harder when there are more members required
>> to constitute a quorum.  On the other hand, if somehow things get out
>> of control and the community needs to take things back, then not
>> having deadwood in the voting rolls means that those who are actively
>> involved would find it easier to constitute a quorum at such a
>> meeting.  Really, you just want the legal representation of the
>> organization to match those who are actively a part of it.
>>
>> So, the question becomes is compulsory voting a reasonable price to
>> pay for better governance.  In some (but not many) countries they feel
>> strongly enough about such things that they actually fine you for
>> failing to vote.
>>
>> If we just maintain the status quo across the board I can see less
>> urgency here.  However, if we're going to go so far as to consider
>> putting the Trustees at the top of the food chain wouldn't it make
>> sense to also take a look at how they get elected?  And why would we
>> want them maintaining multiple sets of criteria and admission
>> processes for the two groups of members they'd now administer?
>>
>> All that said, this should also demonstrate that "re-organizing"
>> Gentoo isn't really just as simple as changing a word in the Wiki
>> about where Comrel appeals go.  There are a multitude of concerns that
>> need to be dealt with.
>>
> 
> 
> OK so my issue is that the proposal as i've read it so far (which to
> be fair is only a dozen or so posts in the backlog) seems to say that
> the relationship goes the other way around from what you've described
> above -- in what you say above it seems that the idea here is to allow
> for foundation members to be a subset of dev's but also include staff,
> and be more limiting.  However it seems to me that devs are a complete
> subset of staff in the proposal and therefore any change in foundation
> member (and therefore staff) status automatically affects dev status,
> or at least that this is an undefined state.
> 
> I don't really have an opinion of what it is that's attempting to be
> achieved by the changes (at least, not yet), so long as the text makes
> it clear what the classifications are and there isn't any ambiguity
> between how a change in state of one classification affects another.
> 
> 
+1. I think all anyone involved in this discussion wants is clearer,
fairer standards for all staff+devs+foundation members. And hopefully,
enough introspection to question whether past decisions were correct.

-- 
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C  1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]