Add policy for determining Project Director substitutes #61
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Ryan Levick <[email protected]>
|
|
||
| * The Project Director should inform the other Project Directors and the Council of their absence as soon as possible preferably at least 7 days before the Foundation board meeting will take place. | ||
| * The absence of the Project Director may be announced publicly. | ||
| * Any Project Director or Council member may nominate any Project member as a potential substitute unless the member has an open moderation sanction against them. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
unless the member has an open moderation sanction against them.
Does this mean an active investigation, or that the mod team has finished and taken action against the person?
If it's an active investigation, these things aren't currently public, right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We've had similar policies in other places that we might want to formalize. Effectively we want to prevent a team member who is not in good standing from being added as a sub.
I agree that moderation sanctions would not and should not be public knowledge, but it seems particularly draconian for it to be possible for there to be moderation sanctions that only the mod team and the individual in question know about. It doesn't seem inappropriate for the Council to be made aware that there is a moderation investigation against an individual as long as the details aren't revealed and none of this is made public.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Perhaps:
Any Project Director or Council member may nominate any Project member as a potential substitute provided the nominated member is in good standing with the project (e.g. they do not have an open moderation sanction against them).
I wouldn't want to tie this policy directly to moderation action disclosure rules, so hopefully this gives us some flexibility whilst making it clear we're stepping around the obvious loophole. And in anycase, I hope we can trust the PDs and Council members to come to a sensible consensus here.
|
We also had some discussion about whether employment limits apply to substitutes, right? It'd be good to include the conclusion of those discussions in this doc too. |
|
@rylev I'm wondering if there is anything blocking this? It seems like there is an open question about employment limits. However, I'm not sure that needs to block this? That is, can that be considered as a followup? |
Signed-off-by: Ryan Levick <[email protected]>
|
@ehuss I pushed a change that addresses the employer/demographic restriction question. Does this need to be approved by the Council? Should we instead merge and inform the Council to raise objections should they have any? |
|
I think we have been making policy decisions via consensus, and I think it would be best to keep that process for now. I don't expect this to be too difficult to get people to look at, since it is relatively small (and I hope uncontroversial). Given that: @rfcbot fcp merge |
|
Team member @ehuss has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged team members: No concerns currently listed. Once a majority of reviewers approve (and at most 2 approvals are outstanding), this will enter its final comment period. If you spot a major issue that hasn't been raised at any point in this process, please speak up! See this document for info about what commands tagged team members can give me. |
rfcbot
added
proposed-final-comment-period
|
I'm not sure I'm ready to hit OK yet. Perhaps we should clarify here whether there is a time limit on the Council's selected alternate. Without a time limit, it seems like a loop-hole for the Council to get around Board membership demographic restrictions. |
|
@jonathanpallant makes sense. I personally think we can assume a hostile Council that willfully ignores the spirit of this rule would face scrutiny in other regards so I don't think we need to be super restrictive here. My strawman proposal would be that no single individual is allowed to substitute more than 3 times in a 6 month period. This should make it pretty easy to find a substitute in emergency situations that can form some sort of continuum without becoming a de facto PD. Perhaps we should also give some sort of guidance when it becomes clear that a PD should step down... |
|
@ehuss I'm no longer allowed to push to this repo directly and unfortunately this PR is a branch of the repo and not a fork. Therefore, I can no longer making any changes myself. Let me know how you want to proceed. |
|
An option is to add yourself as an individual with write access to this repo (since you are still on committees). Or you can open an new PR from your fork. I'm pretty sure GitHub cannot switch an existing PR. |
|
Closing in favor of #72 |
rfcbot
removed
proposed-final-comment-period
This solves an ambiguity about what to do when a Project Director cannot make a Foundation Board meeting. Instead of there being UB where in practice the PD in question decided on their own, this document lies out a simple procedure for choosing a sub.