Vote: Adopt Internal Membership Policy
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
A. I think this does a great job of doing what the project needs it to, and addresses many of the issues brought up in previous discussions.
On Thu, Sep 23, 2021, 19:20 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
Sorry, that should be B. Adopt the pdf version with changes it contains.
On Thu, Sep 23, 2021, 21:36 C R cajhne@gmail.com wrote:
A. I think this does a great job of doing what the project needs it to, and addresses many of the issues brought up in previous discussions.
On Thu, Sep 23, 2021, 19:20 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
On Thu, 2021-09-23 at 21:37 +0100, C R wrote:
Sorry, that should be B. Adopt the pdf version with changes it contains.
Ah that's my bad Chris. b. should be "Adopt it after my own minor modifications; and here is what I think should be tweeked"
I used "these" in a very inaccurate way.
Martin,
Looks very good, Martin!
I'd vote *B*, with the following minor remarks:
In the current redaction, "member" is first defined as someone who contributed, then the term "active member" is used for vetted member
Hence, I would
-> in Definitions, replace the first def with those two definitions:
/- An Contributor is a person who is actively contributing to the Inkscape project or who has contributed to the project in the past. [1] // //- An Inkscape member is a Contributor who has been added to the member list and not been removed from it/
-> s/active Inkscape member/Inkscape member/ (to follow on the definitions) -> 5b "The list of Inkscape members" -> 4c s/contributor/Contributor (if added to the defs)
4: "members maybe" -> "member may be" 4a: s/infraction/violation/ ?
5c: remove "[3]" ([1] intended here maybe ?)
Bests,
Thanks Marc!
I've added your changes, I think they're reasonable and don't change anything material so I'm attaching it here as the effective draft.
Martin,
On Fri, 2021-09-24 at 01:12 +0200, Marc Jeanmougin wrote:
Looks very good, Martin!
I'd vote B, with the following minor remarks:
In the current redaction, "member" is first defined as someone who contributed, then the term "active member" is used for vetted member
Hence, I would
-> in Definitions, replace the first def with those two definitions:
- An Contributor is a person who is actively contributing to the
Inkscape project or who has contributed to the project in the past. [1]
- An Inkscape member is a Contributor who has been added to the
member list and not been removed from it
-> s/active Inkscape member/Inkscape member/ (to follow on the definitions) -> 5b "The list of Inkscape members" -> 4c s/contributor/Contributor (if added to the defs)
4: "members maybe" -> "member may be" 4a: s/infraction/violation/ ?
5c: remove "[3]" ([1] intended here maybe ?)
Bests,
-- Marc
On 9/23/21 8:19 PM, Martin Owens 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
Inkscape Board of Directors mailing list -- inkscape-board@lists.inkscape.org To unsubscribe send an email to inkscape-board-leave@lists.inkscape.org
Inkscape Board of Directors mailing list -- inkscape-board@lists.inkscape.org To unsubscribe send an email to inkscape-board-leave@lists.inkscape.org
Glad to see progress on this!
I vote B.
As a personal pet peeve, most numbered lines should have a comma or period at the end.
One thing this policy doesn't cover is what is the initial set of members. It makes the most sense to me that the initial set is those listed in the authors file. Once this policy is approved, we can then get the ball rolling by inviting and approving new members from Vectors, translators, etc.
Tav
----- Original Message ----- | From: "Martin Owens" doctormo@geek-2.com | To: "Inkscape Board" inkscape-board@lists.inkscape.org | Cc: "Inkscape-SFC" inkscape@sfconservancy.org | Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2021 8:19:40 PM | Subject: Vote: Adopt Internal Membership Policy | | 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 |
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
Thanks Ted,
I'm going to record your vote as D. "Redraft and wait for the FSA", let me know if this is incorrect since it's a bit ambiguous.
I've incorporated the copy editing changes too. Thanks for the review.
Best Regards, Martin Owens
On Fri, 2021-09-24 at 14:48 -0500, Ted Gould wrote:
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
On Sep 25 2021, at 2:00 am, Martin Owens doctormo@geek-2.com wrote:
I'm going to record your vote as D. "Redraft and wait for the FSA", let me know if this is incorrect since it's a bit ambiguous.
No, I think my vote was clear. If you have questions about my other statements I'd be happy to answer them. Sorry if they were confusing.
I've incorporated the copy editing changes too.
... and is it your intention to ignore the other comments? Ted FYI - Unless there are four 'A' votes the document will need to be reproposed unless there are four 'B' votes with the same changes. Usually another vote works best.
Dear Leadership Committee,
Despite the previous vote including a provision to allow for spelling and grammatical fixes, for the abundance of clarity for all leaders please vote on this amended version which includes all the small grammar fixes from each respondent.
The previous vote should be considered advisory and void in so far as it allowed this revision to be drafted. Thank you to everyone for baring with this drawn out process.
Ballot:
a. Adopt the internal membership policy attached. b. Do not adopt the policy.
Best Regards, Martin Owens
On Thu, 2021-09-23 at 14:19 -0400, Martin Owens 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
Vote B.
It sets up Inkscape Membership as a popularity contest with people "approving" each other. I don't think Inkscape membership should be a popularity contest. Ted On Sep 25 2021, at 6:11 pm, Martin Owens doctormo@geek-2.com wrote:
Dear Leadership Committee,
Despite the previous vote including a provision to allow for spelling and grammatical fixes, for the abundance of clarity for all leaders please vote on this amended version which includes all the small grammar fixes from each respondent.
The previous vote should be considered advisory and void in so far as it allowed this revision to be drafted. Thank you to everyone for baring with this drawn out process.
Ballot: a. Adopt the internal membership policy attached. b. Do not adopt the policy.
Best Regards, Martin Owens On Thu, 2021-09-23 at 14:19 -0400, Martin Owens 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
I vote A . I say we trust the current project members to set their own criteria and contribution bar for membership in the project. "Popularity" in the project is based primarily on contributions anyway. That's how one builds a reputation within any FOSS project.
On Sun, Sep 26, 2021, 00:11 Martin Owens doctormo@geek-2.com wrote:
Dear Leadership Committee,
Despite the previous vote including a provision to allow for spelling and grammatical fixes, for the abundance of clarity for all leaders please vote on this amended version which includes all the small grammar fixes from each respondent.
The previous vote should be considered advisory and void in so far as it allowed this revision to be drafted. Thank you to everyone for baring with this drawn out process.
Ballot:
a. Adopt the internal membership policy attached. b. Do not adopt the policy.
Best Regards, Martin Owens
On Thu, 2021-09-23 at 14:19 -0400, Martin Owens 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
I vote a.
----- Original Message ----- | From: "Martin Owens" doctormo@geek-2.com | To: "Inkscape Board" inkscape-board@lists.inkscape.org | Cc: "Inkscape-SFC" inkscape@sfconservancy.org | Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2021 1:11:21 AM | Subject: Vote2: Adopt Internal Membership Policy (With modifications) | | Dear Leadership Committee, | | Despite the previous vote including a provision to allow for spelling | and grammatical fixes, for the abundance of clarity for all leaders | please vote on this amended version which includes all the small | grammar fixes from each respondent. | | The previous vote should be considered advisory and void in so far as | it allowed this revision to be drafted. Thank you to everyone for | baring with this drawn out process. | | Ballot: | | a. Adopt the internal membership policy attached. | b. Do not adopt the policy. | | Best Regards, Martin Owens | | On Thu, 2021-09-23 at 14:19 -0400, Martin Owens 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 |
a - I might have minor redactional remarks, but overall this policy seems to allow for a flexible, team-compatible workflow to enable all people contributing to the project to have their voice heard when choosing PLC members in the future
Le 26/09/2021 à 01:11, Martin Owens a écrit :
Dear Leadership Committee,
Despite the previous vote including a provision to allow for spelling and grammatical fixes, for the abundance of clarity for all leaders please vote on this amended version which includes all the small grammar fixes from each respondent.
The previous vote should be considered advisory and void in so far as it allowed this revision to be drafted. Thank you to everyone for baring with this drawn out process.
Ballot:
a. Adopt the internal membership policy attached. b. Do not adopt the policy.
Best Regards, Martin Owens
On Thu, 2021-09-23 at 14:19 -0400, Martin Owens 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
Inkscape Board of Directors mailing list -- inkscape-board@lists.inkscape.org To unsubscribe send an email to inkscape-board-leave@lists.inkscape.org
I vote B.
Cheers, Josh
On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 4:11 PM Martin Owens doctormo@geek-2.com wrote:
Dear Leadership Committee,
Despite the previous vote including a provision to allow for spelling and grammatical fixes, for the abundance of clarity for all leaders please vote on this amended version which includes all the small grammar fixes from each respondent.
The previous vote should be considered advisory and void in so far as it allowed this revision to be drafted. Thank you to everyone for baring with this drawn out process.
Ballot:
a. Adopt the internal membership policy attached. b. Do not adopt the policy.
Best Regards, Martin Owens
On Thu, 2021-09-23 at 14:19 -0400, Martin Owens 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
Dear Leadership Committee,
I'm voting a.
Thanks for voting everyone, the results are as follows:
b. Ted a. Chris a. Tav a. Marc b. Josh a. Martin
This puts the vote at 4 to 2 in favour of adopting the membership policy as official internal policy for the project.
The next actions are to publish this document as a PDF from the website which I've done here:
https://inkscape.org/*leadership-committee/
The next technical tasks are to implement the required functionality to make sure our membership is open to our contributors. I've got most of the way through the required functionality and will be deploying to test.inkscape.org for testing in the coming week. I'll be recruiting from vectors, testing and moderators to see if it works well enough.
In order to do the final task of running an election, we'll need the FSA updated with the language that we previous voted on. I noted in today's status update meeting that ted was pressing the matter with the conservancy. I'll also add my wight to that, since I created the original ticket with them, hopefully it'll help move things forwards.
Best Regards, Martin Owens
On Sat, 2021-09-25 at 19:11 -0400, Martin Owens wrote:
Dear Leadership Committee,
Despite the previous vote including a provision to allow for spelling and grammatical fixes, for the abundance of clarity for all leaders please vote on this amended version which includes all the small grammar fixes from each respondent.
The previous vote should be considered advisory and void in so far as it allowed this revision to be drafted. Thank you to everyone for baring with this drawn out process.
Ballot:
a. Adopt the internal membership policy attached. b. Do not adopt the policy.
Best Regards, Martin Owens
On Thu, 2021-09-23 at 14:19 -0400, Martin Owens 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
Thanks, Martin!
On Sat, Oct 2, 2021, 08:32 Martin Owens doctormo@geek-2.com wrote:
Dear Leadership Committee,
I'm voting a.
Thanks for voting everyone, the results are as follows:
b. Ted a. Chris a. Tav a. Marc b. Josh a. Martin
This puts the vote at 4 to 2 in favour of adopting the membership policy as official internal policy for the project.
The next actions are to publish this document as a PDF from the website which I've done here:
https://inkscape.org/*leadership-committee/
The next technical tasks are to implement the required functionality to make sure our membership is open to our contributors. I've got most of the way through the required functionality and will be deploying to test.inkscape.org for testing in the coming week. I'll be recruiting from vectors, testing and moderators to see if it works well enough.
In order to do the final task of running an election, we'll need the FSA updated with the language that we previous voted on. I noted in today's status update meeting that ted was pressing the matter with the conservancy. I'll also add my wight to that, since I created the original ticket with them, hopefully it'll help move things forwards.
Best Regards, Martin Owens
On Sat, 2021-09-25 at 19:11 -0400, Martin Owens wrote:
Dear Leadership Committee,
Despite the previous vote including a provision to allow for spelling and grammatical fixes, for the abundance of clarity for all leaders please vote on this amended version which includes all the small grammar fixes from each respondent.
The previous vote should be considered advisory and void in so far as it allowed this revision to be drafted. Thank you to everyone for baring with this drawn out process.
Ballot:
a. Adopt the internal membership policy attached. b. Do not adopt the policy.
Best Regards, Martin Owens
On Thu, 2021-09-23 at 14:19 -0400, Martin Owens 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
participants (6)
-
C R -
Josh Andler -
Marc Jeanmougin -
Martin Owens -
tavmjong＠free.fr -
Ted Gould