Hello Adrien, On Thu, 2020-12-10 at 12:28 +0000, Adrien Glauser wrote:
``` Restraint is expected from current and former Board members during elections. When talking about candidates in their capacity of member or former member, they should seek to prioritize means of communication that:
Why should current and former Board members be held to a different standard than any other contributor? Are we not meant to be a community of equals? One of the key points that comes up during every election is the reminder that Board members have no additional priviledge or power over the direction of this project, but only the responsibility to remove blockages to the community when they appear. It seems counter intutive to me to require restraint from current and former Board Members but not apply the same rules to the entire community. I can understand a version of these rules that apply to current Board members, as they may have to work with the elected individuals..honouring the will of the vote and all that. But I strongly feel former Board members have the same rights to a life of free contribution to the Project as any other contributor. I think we should avoid creating a situation which effectively says to ex-Board members "Thanks for all the hard work you've done in a very stressful and tricky role for the Project, but now you're a second class citizen compared to every other contributor". Assuming you can provide a justification for applying this rule to current & former Members, then I have a followup question. Do you feel it's fair to retroactively reply these rules to all past Board Members, even though they had no forewarning of these limitations before they decided to run for the position? I think that's an unfair imposition to hold dozens of contributors to a different standard than everyone else, when they had no forewarning about that standard before they offered to help the Project by running for the Board. Assuming you can't provide a justification, I can imagine these rules working Project wide, but such a constitutional change would almost certainly require a Membership vote to accept them, given they would be obligations for all contributors to the Project.
- allow candidates to reply; - allow the community to follow and discuss claims and replies from both sides; - provide reliably records of all exchanges; - minimize the risk of harming the candidates' and the community's reputation.
I feel the first 3 are valid criteria, I fear the last one is impossible. Someones reputation (and the communities) is based on what we all say. It doesn't matter where we say it, the only way of minimizing the risk to candidates and communities reptuation is preventing the candidates and community from saying anything.