From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-project+bounces-7172-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F06891381F1
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Fri, 9 Feb 2018 07:48:33 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F2A98E09CF;
Fri, 9 Feb 2018 07:48:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-io0-x22f.google.com (mail-io0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22f])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1D95E09CC
for <gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri, 9 Feb 2018 07:48:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-io0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id x188so2211930iod.1
for <gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 08 Feb 2018 23:48:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=funtoo-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=quW/pJDPFwI7MFVq+guG7aOn2pLD2tAEZ5M/GhFR64Q=;
b=ZkmLKj54yO5NozMHXW9iLMNwrYUjASp0C2N+hTQ0kR5vYN5ZfYTy5UHmuWhURg2Tid
nWwx744+0AeqVrjWJ4y02F72P2KpjcjAMvuQzYsViW2D60F/oXt9XfGTknPi/sZgC6ox
hpkGnfheIagzCVDce1T5H0ihxSQ6mv++BHd7tnUFA3WNNn9/ax6rkv+vigvcBN/V866o
OIpOjowh5ukJaZ11cPuLq+uWWSw9Lh7leKyrDWgd2NPerW2F81PW/mlJzbMYHwM9ydFm
ZjnJgrXn7KZm6Xt+xnKVdjuZ1AQz7GN5t8Do6qbCrl2/Df7RsyPxKHcW1dpvPxZZnSNu
p+fg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:message-id:subject:to;
bh=quW/pJDPFwI7MFVq+guG7aOn2pLD2tAEZ5M/GhFR64Q=;
b=jPkgIuqP5BGzBHi0qWxp+r1bfOKlSD8J8stGb/N12SbZR/fj4liaxGO7TqTigxsIY1
3w5EisLTd/yJURIVh94zXY4pdGidrcTixi4v+OpC6dT6jlpfFyCJOv89sGPNmT5HoPf2
kcLTg9FAS4TdqLNgxYzc4zAF0IilJ/U5WZ6R54rZhHMvhy96jq2pussohrbH+cs/5Xel
O5x4QmRTHKYe5zpev2Toev9IvSp122JwsBbn2ZLz6re6PsmsLgQ+eKmXrTPIu/57By+5
d5eqh1gy8hYDkA4AqSJbttIV2OCIaOxO1alOfKBjlqFmAhCHM0WwojMIzHtDPP0NP8ZM
sLJg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPBsswYledBIRm05wD+AiHtwsajd/gfMO19WWOd0trR1oRV4svxX
GWt+5B42aOW2999+pwmmWX97352lvV1F8fT/T9hQmdcb
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x227cl+qHnacYAgyyL0HC3Ndi0O57oAnSEM8k4/8yldx/kTEIgh4lFie7eV9+FaguL7L/Um3LMovcP8qkfAaajtw=
X-Received: by 10.107.133.75 with SMTP id h72mr2206011iod.227.1518162511407;
Thu, 08 Feb 2018 23:48:31 -0800 (PST)
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-project+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-project+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-project+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list <gentoo-project.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.79.202.75 with HTTP; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 23:48:30 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <23165.20112.833342.101687@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de>
References: <20180208045041.GA6197@clocktown> <CAPDOV4-rF+j=6i87QLBeh=9G8C9xTsUVK2YAxkruge_dhW+kJg@mail.gmail.com>
<20180208211814.GA19121@clocktown> <CAPDOV49Xy+izCTxRUGXm405UzBcY3GJj1-Xwwi2JX5jBm0DgoQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAGfcS_kHaCQDBX31KuRkO6Yhj2WVhPnLfHPGe5sbwb8bbOgqpg@mail.gmail.com>
<20180208221740.du25ay4mrqyjxlwc@gentoo.org> <CAPDOV49FaNruSfPvb0bQZptV0vL9uHbSEARf4ZMG0xM-Qs0tAA@mail.gmail.com>
<20180208223921.fg3pxpgj3oo5hzsf@gentoo.org> <23165.20112.833342.101687@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de>
From: Daniel Robbins <drobbins@funtoo.org>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2018 00:48:30 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPDOV48GAMBxXMdz3hFuaLGb6D7AUK5=7ZqUUjmCXY7_QSC96Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] RFC: Expanding Foundation Bylaws, section 4.9
Termination from Membership
To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113ec5e43436380564c2c12a"
X-Archives-Salt: 150066c6-72b0-4eb7-b140-25a9bcf87363
X-Archives-Hash: 36c204717e91197fdd09348e4b02cc20
--001a113ec5e43436380564c2c12a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Ulm,
You are using hyperbole. A majority vote of trustees is required. That is
not haphazard, as you state -- it is a process that requires majority
consensus of elected officials. We assume that the trustees are looking out
for the project. The trustees are there to protect the community so they
must have this ability.
If you have concerns over potential for abuse, I'd be interested to hear
those concerns and discuss those.
Best,
Daniel
On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 12:32 AM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 8 Feb 2018, Matthew Thode wrote:
>
> > On 18-02-08 15:33:02, Daniel Robbins wrote:
> >> I think rich0 is spot-on here where if we make it even shorter, it get=
s
> >> even stronger:
> >>
> >> Section 4.9. Termination from Membership.
> >> Membership may be terminated by a majority vote of the board of
> >> trustees.
> >>
> >> No explanation required. Right now, it sounds like the trustees may
> >> need to justify that the member is acting contrary to the
> >> purpose(s) of the Foundation. When really, no justification should
> >> be required (it just opens the door for endless argument,
> >> grumpiness, and thus more likely to lead to legal action). At the
> >> very least, it should say that the trustees can remove anyone *they
> >> feel* (ie. based on *their opinion*, which can't be argued) is
> >> acting poorly. That removes the possibility of debate.
>
> > Agreed, this is the only improvement I see us making to that specific
> > bylaw.
>
> Have I understood this right, removing the possibility of debate and
> giving trustees the power to haphazardly kick members is seen as an
> *improvement* over what there is now? I would rather call it
> despotism.
>
> Just for comparison, look at the corresponding wording in the bylaws
> of Gentoo e.V. (my attempt of a translation, original German is in
> https://gentoo-ev.org/w/images/8/86/Satzung.pdf, =C2=A74 (5)):
>
> "A member may be excluded by decision of the board: for damaging the
> reputation of the Verein, for failing to pay the membership fee, or
> for another important reason. The board must communicate the decision
> to the excluded member in writing, indicating the reasons, and give
> him hearing on request. The general members' assembly can be invoked
> for an appeal against the board's decision; membership is suspended
> until the decision of the general assembly."
>
> Ulrich
>
--001a113ec5e43436380564c2c12a
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">Ulm,<div><br></div><div>You are using hyperbole. A majorit=
y vote of trustees is required. That is not haphazard, as you state -- it i=
s a process that requires majority consensus of elected officials. We assum=
e that the trustees are looking out for the project. The trustees are there=
to protect the community so they must have this ability.</div><div><br></d=
iv><div>If you have concerns over potential for abuse, I'd be intereste=
d to hear those concerns and discuss those.</div><div><br></div><div>Best,<=
/div><div><br></div><div>Daniel</div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><=
div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 12:32 AM, Ulrich Mueller <=
span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:ulm@gentoo.org" target=3D"_blank">ul=
m@gentoo.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" sty=
le=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span =
class=3D"">>>>>> On Thu, 8 Feb 2018, Matthew Thode wrote:<br=
>
<br>
> On 18-02-08 15:33:02, Daniel Robbins wrote:<br>
>> I think rich0 is spot-on here where if we make it even shorter, it=
gets<br>
>> even stronger:<br>
>><br>
>> Section 4.9. Termination from Membership.<br>
>> Membership may be terminated by a majority vote of the board of<br=
>
>> trustees.<br>
>><br>
>> No explanation required. Right now, it sounds like the trustees ma=
y<br>
>> need to justify that the member is acting contrary to the<br>
>> purpose(s) of the Foundation. When really, no justification should=
<br>
>> be required (it just opens the door for endless argument,<br>
>> grumpiness, and thus more likely to lead to legal action). At the<=
br>
>> very least, it should say that the trustees can remove anyone *the=
y<br>
>> feel* (ie. based on *their opinion*, which can't be argued) is=
<br>
>> acting poorly. That removes the possibility of debate.<br>
<br>
> Agreed, this is the only improvement I see us making to that specific<=
br>
> bylaw.<br>
<br>
</span>Have I understood this right, removing the possibility of debate and=
<br>
giving trustees the power to haphazardly kick members is seen as an<br>
*improvement* over what there is now? I would rather call it<br>
despotism.<br>
<br>
Just for comparison, look at the corresponding wording in the bylaws<br>
of Gentoo e.V. (my attempt of a translation, original German is in<br>
<a href=3D"https://gentoo-ev.org/w/images/8/86/Satzung.pdf" rel=3D"noreferr=
er" target=3D"_blank">https://gentoo-ev.org/w/<wbr>images/8/86/Satzung.pdf<=
/a>, =C2=A74 (5)):<br>
<br>
"A member may be excluded by decision of the board: for damaging the<b=
r>
reputation of the Verein, for failing to pay the membership fee, or<br>
for another important reason. The board must communicate the decision<br>
to the excluded member in writing, indicating the reasons, and give<br>
him hearing on request. The general members' assembly can be invoked<br=
>
for an appeal against the board's decision; membership is suspended<br>
until the decision of the general assembly."<br>
<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
Ulrich<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>
--001a113ec5e43436380564c2c12a--