Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2010 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Re: [steering-discuss] Updated draft of the Community Bylaws


Hello Michael,

Le Tue, 07 Dec 2010 11:59:07 +0000,
Michael Meeks <michael.meeks@novell.com> a écrit :

Hi Charles,

On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 11:08 +0100, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
Last call: are we good on this?

      Sigh; I only just got to reading the final draft, busy day
yesterday. Overall it seems to be excellent, I have a few
un-addressed concerns:

      Members are expected to refrain from any kind of expression of
      racism, xenophobia, sexism and religious or political
      intolerance.

      This sounds like a vow of chastity :-) It appears to apply to
the whole of life, and not just to engagement with TDF etc. As such
is is somewhat offensive, and in itself an oxymoron: "I can't
tolerate your intolerance" ;-). Many communities have people with
strong, colorful and opposing views expressed in strong terms. This
to me is a sign of health and diversity - instead of some bland
pea-soup of non-expression :-)

      I'd like to excise that; though clearly we need some minimal
good behaviour policy I don't believe it belongs here. I rather prefer
relying on the much more helpful text in the "Revocation of
membership" section, that talks about ad-hominem, attacks, abuse,
insulting, etc. - sounds like a much more sensible line that is
supportable :-)

      Every membership applicant must have been active for at least
      three (3) months, and should make a moral commitment to at
least six (6) months activity (not counting the first three (3) months
      of fulfillment of qualification).

      Again - this moral commitment to future work is a problem for
people that take their commitments seriously. I can't commit to work
on LibreOffice for six months: anything could happen - I might be
incapacitated, die suddenly, loose my mind (arguably this has already
happened) :-) IMHO the "future commitment" is sufficiently built on an
(already over-long) three month history with the project - I would
like to see that removed.

      Continuity of membership section.

      This is much improved, I like the renewal process, makes a
lot of sense.

      Anyhow - otherwise, I am completely behind this, it seems
rather polished now, and the checks and balances seem more than
adequate.

      With the removal of one paragraph, and the end of that 'moral
commitment' sentence I'm 100% behind this.

So I didn't write the first paragraph, and I believe it is of no
consequence at all; as for the moral commitment I'm the one who added
the term "moral".  It might have been me using a french expression more
than anything. By adding "moral" I was emphasizing that it wasn't
"legal", meaning: you can commit "in spirit", but it's not a
fundamental problem affecting your membership if you don't. Remember
that non-members can contribute patches, submit bug reports, etc. If
you want to become a member it's gotta be for a reason :-) 

Is this something that clarifies the sentence ?

best,
Charles. 


-- 
Charles-H. Schulz
Membre du Comité exécutif
The Document Foundation.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+help@documentfoundation.org
List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Context


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.