On 28/02/18 07:06, Greg Freemyer wrote:
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 8:29 PM, Fraser_Bell
On 02/12/2018 02:12 AM, Simon Lees wrote:
I think to protect ourselves against someone giving a +1 in a certain
case without knowing some information this is a reasonable thing to do.
It would have to be a pretty extreme case such as the person applying
had previously been banned from mailing lists for being abusive to other
The change I'd make though is, in such a case (or possibly in any case
where the membership committee may have questions) I think that the
person in question should be referred to and discussed / approved /
rejected by the board not the membership committee. The reason for this
is the membership committee is really an "Administrative" group that are
just clearly implementing a set of policies that have been put in place
and agreed to by the community where as the board handles all other
issues like this such as final moderation of mailing lists.
Really all this clause would do is prevent the case where someone is
added as a member then removed from the project shortly after as they
have been violating community guidelines. In the current proposal
someone could be on there final warning from the board for "violations
of community standards" and apply for and become a member (they are
active after all and currently thats the only requirement). By adding a
clause such as this it gives the board the power to say something along
the lines of "your on your final warning we haven't been happy with your
behavior to date, please apply again in a year and if your behavior has
improved we will accept you". This also still falls under the safety net
of if 20% of members feel the board has treated someone unreasonably
they can get a new board.
Really its a clause that hopefully never gets used but potentially gives
the board the power to make a possibly messy situation less messy.
+1 to everything else in the original plan
I totally agree with this.
It's 2 weeks later and the above along with Carlos'es suggestions are
both good idea in my mind.
I see them working together like this:
- By default, any one member of the membership-committee can approve a request
- Any one member of the membership-committee can veto the default one
member approval rule and force the application to a full membership
- During the membership committee vote, borderline issues about
following the guiding principles can be taken into account to
delay/deny membership even for someone that is clearly contributing
I think that this really should be decided by the board rather then the
membership committee. The board has clear rules about how its elected
and replaced and deals with these issues in every other part of the
project, whereas the membership committee is just a bunch of volunteers
helping apply a basic set of rules as an administrative task.
Simon Lees (Simotek) http://simotek.net
Emergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek
SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30
GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B