Vote B.

That's how I feel, but I'm not sure what happens if we pass this policy. Mostly that is because the SFC hasn't approved the change the FSA, so we'd still be AUTHORS. I'll follow up on what the hold up there. But since it is looking like we'll have one or two more revisions, I'm thinking we could set the voting period to: "7 days and FSA approval" so that the policy wouldn't exist until the FSA is approved.

Second general thing is I really think this policy should have a basis in the FSA. That doesn't mean the policy needs to change explicitly, but we should fix that. So at some level that makes me "D" in that we need that too. Not wanting to come to the party empty handed, I'll propose an FSA change that hopefully complements this in my next email.

Suggested Changes (looking at V2):

An Inkscape Member has the following rights above a normal person:

The "above a normal person" seems like we're segregating people, which isn't good. I don't think it is helpful and should be dropped.

Grammar pedantry, in "Membership Privileges" if we say "has the rights" we don't need to repeat "The right" each time.

3a. A Membership can be requested OR
3b. New members can be invited by any Inkscape Member

It seems weird to me that these are connected by the "OR" but none of the other bullet points are. I'm gonna suggest we push both of these into one point: "3a. A Membership can be requested or new members can be invited by any Inkscape Member"

3c. Peer-approval: Any Three (3) Inkscape Members are required to approve the new membership.

The word "approval" here seems like a judgement call on the person, I'm going to suggest that we switch this to "verify the contribution" of the member. That way it's less "do I like them" and more "are they qualified."

3e. There are no limits on the numbers of new memberships an existing member may approve.

It feels weird to me to put this in the policy. The fact that there is no limits is said by the fact that there are no limits anywhere in the policy. I don't think that we need to say what isn't in the document. Important for discussion, but not the actual policy.

3f. Approval can not be revoked once the new member is activated.

I don't get this. The next section is how to revoke it. It seems inconsistent. Or are we saying that a member verifying someone's contributions can't be revoked after they've been added to the list?

3h. A list of new members will be sent the the PLC via email for general review each week

I like this, I think it's a good compromise. Don't know that it needs to be in the policy but we can have the email include the folks who verified the person as well?

Members maybe removed by a majority vote of the PLC for the following reasons ONLY:

Should be "may be" unless Carly Rae Jepsen is curating the list. 😉

4a. A serious code of conduct infraction which can not be resolved otherwise.

I don't think we want this to say "serious code of conduct" as it leads to the question: Which parts of the COC are you not serious about? (and no one wants to go down that path) I think we could just say "COC infraction" because the text above is "may be removed" so there's no requirement for removal in any case (the PLC would decide).

4b. Approving not-contributing people to be members (spamming the membership system)

Could we just say "abuse of project infrastructure"? It seems like there are other cases of our systems being misused that we'd want to take care of as well and that would cover the membership system.

4c. Not being or having been a Contributor to the project.

I realize this is for the list, but I think it comes off a little awkward. Also I think we should be explicit on the "being". I'm thinking perhaps split the two cases: "Submitting for membership without being a contributor" and "Ceasing to contribute to the project for over a year."

I think we need a 4d for people that we can't contact or verify contact information for. Just so we can clean up the list. At least we'll need it initially to certify the work you already did there.

Last really stupid thing but it bugs me. Can the "Definitions" be a bulletted list so that the tabstops are right 😄

Thanks Martin for continuing to push this and get it done.

Ted
On Sep 23 2021, at 1:19 pm, Martin Owens <doctormo@geek-2.com> wrote:
Dear Leadership Committee,

As discussed; the two week consultation is finished. Thanks to everyone
who came to the meetings, commented here on the mailing list and sent
private messages. I've distilled everything down into a internal policy
document which we can now vote on.

The preference from other board members was to put this strait to a
vote since we've talked about this for a long time. So hopefully this
represents a balanced and fair membership process.

See the attached draft policy document that we are voting on here.

Ballot

a. Adopt the internal membership policy as is.
b. Adopt it after these minor modifications.
c. Do not adopt this policy, or anything like it.
d. Do something else.

Best Regards, Martin Owens