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

[Daniel Robbins <drobbins@funtoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3743 bytes --]

I think the "rules" as it stands give the trustees the ability to remove
any member that they feel is disruptive or not good for the project. They
don't need to provide a reason or justification. It is at their discretion.
So disruptive people can be removed. If I am misunderstanding this, let me
know.

I understand what you are getting at though, but to make it sound better I
would take a positive stance, and list expectations in the Code of Conduct.
I'll will give you an example:

"Foundation members are expected to act in good faith to cooperate with
others and resolve problems constructively, including the use of our
official channels for dispute resolution. The Foundation reserves the right
to remove anyone's membership who they feel is being disruptive to the
project or not acting in the spirit of cooperation, and depending on the
severity of the behavior, this may not even include a warning. Therefore,
it is important that as a Foundation member that you are aware of this. We
expect that you will not only cooperate but act in a way that models
professionalism and respect -- that is our standard."

That's a friendly warning, and if people read it, I think they will feel
"Cool - the Foundation is trying to maintain a professional environment. I
can get behind that. And I know that they expect that from me and if I
deviate from that, I know what the consequences might be." Then I really
don't feel like the Trustees have any hoops they need to jump through to
remove people -- they can exercise their rights as described in the bylaws.

-Daniel



On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 2:18 PM, zlg <zlg@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 10:41:11PM -0700, Daniel Robbins wrote:
> > The current bylaws are sufficient.
> >
> > Threats should not be tolerated. It seems like right now, all it takes
> are
> > the trustees to vote on it to remove that member. Your addition leaves it
> > up to interpretation whether specified events fit the criteria you
> define,
> > which just make it more confusing than a simple vote of trustees in the
> > first place.
>
> All of our policies are written in a natural language, which leaves them
> open to interpretation by a human. How would you improve the wording of
> the criteria?
>
> >
> > So I don't think any of this helps; and with the videos at the end, it
> just
> > kind of seems paranoid.
>
> The intent was to show that the phenomenon is real and poses a threat to
> us. The all-caps warning was being respectful of the circumstances that
> people may be reading the list under. I thought I put enough thought and
> effort into my recommendation to not be written off and disregarded as
> paranoid. In an age where information is gathered en masse and
> often misused against people, I hardly consider it paranoid to be
> concerned about the safety of our members.
>
> Which bylaw(s) already cover legal threats? 4.9 is a bylaw with broad,
> general language that is also subject to interpretation. Our Code of
> Conduct does not cover this behavior, either. The closest thing is
> "mean-spirited", which is actually *less* specific than what I outlined.
>
> It comes down to this: these events *can* and *do* happen, and some of
> our members *have* threatened legal action in response to situations
> they didn't like. There is no denying any of that. What will Gentoo do
> about it when it's one of our own who loses their job or their life at
> the hands of an angry person with a phone?  Should we stand by and wait
> until damage is done before acting?  I think we can do better than that.
>
> As mentioned in my prior mail, it's a draft. Patches welcome.
> >
> > -Daniel
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 9:50 PM, zlg <zlg@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > >[snip]
> > >
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4532 bytes --]