<snip>

2. Martin Owens will contact active contributors with the design and collect who wants one and their shape/sizes and shipping details.

This seems like a cool idea, I'm a little concerned with how we're gonna define "contributor" here. Do we have a set of criteria on who is in and out? No issue being generous, but we should have something other than "Martin likes them." 😉

Also, do we have and GDPR/data regs issues with collecting addresses? I'm guessing if we just destroy the data after sending them we're fine?

* Number of peers required, 3, 1 inviter and 2 other peers to aprove.

* Invite only, apply via asking in chat/mailing list

Curious what the "invite" step is. It seems like we've got a web form below, why have a special role for "inviter" versus just a third peer?

* One-time approval, can not be revoked.

This seems to be suggesting no "retirement" provision, which seems odd to me. For instance, if I left the project today and wasn't involved at all, it seems odd that I'd have a say who is in the PLC in say five years. Or for instance if the project loses the ability to contact me it seems I should be taken off the list somehow just to remove cruft for the organization. While the PLC could technically vote to remove folks, I guess I'd rather have that for egregious cases like code of conduct violations and the such.

* Cascade protection: Grace period before peer approval of 3 months

* No grace period for any other privilages.

I guess this aligns with some confusion on why we want two stages. But it seems like if two peers are willing to sign off that you've contributed significantly for at least three months already, not sure why there needs to be another three months.

* Removal via the PLC; Majority vote.

Fine either way. But I'd suggest even 2/3. Make a it a BIG DEAL to remove someone.

I think it was Marc's idea last time we discussed this that the PLC should have a final vote on adding someone. And I think that's a good idea. Just a rubber stamp type thing (perhaps even posted to the PLC list but approved with no objection after a seven days?). This way we can catch people who perhaps were banned, but somehow come back or otherwise try something similar ("Oh, your peers are both people who didn't really work on that area of the project, that's odd, let me ask around")

2. After two weeks for discussion, baring any major problems the website will be modified in the following ways:

To be clear, as I think it is implied below, but I'm not sure: "the website" here is the test website, right? I'd not want to modify the full website until the text of the charter is approved at least. I'd be for policies too.

d. Add git repository backend to push logs to gitlab for verification.

Requirement that I'd add is that we could update the Git repo and have that reflected on the website. Not just a one-way data flow. Not sure that's implied, but just making sure.

Best Regards, Martin Owens

Inkscape Leadership Committee

You're not the entire committee 😉

Ted