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

[Raymond Jennings <shentino@gmail.com>]

[-- 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 --]