Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

charter: Add sections on membership, resignations, and removals #248

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 28, 2022
Merged

charter: Add sections on membership, resignations, and removals #248

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
156 changes: 142 additions & 14 deletions charter.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -61,7 +61,13 @@ processes set forth in the committee's [operations documentation][changes].

[changes]: /operations/changes.md

## Elections
## Membership

### Composition

The Steering Committee is composed of seven (7) members.

### Elections

Every year, the Steering Committee holds a general election for open seats.

Expand All @@ -72,28 +78,150 @@ this works.

### Vacancies

In the event of a resignation or other loss of an elected steering committee
member, the candidate with the next most votes from the previous election will
be offered the seat. This process will continue until the seat is filled.
In the event of a resignation or other loss of an elected committee member, the
next most preferred candidate from the previous election will be offered the
seat.

A maximum of one (1) committee member may be selected this way between
elections.

In case this fails to fill the seat, a special election for that position will
be held as soon as possible. [Eligible voters][voter-eligibility] from the most
recent election will vote in the special election i.e., eligibility will not be
redetermined at the time of the special election. A committee member elected in
a special election will serve out the remainder of the term for the person they
are replacing, regardless of the length of that remainder.
be held as soon as possible.

[Eligible voters][voter-eligibility] from the most recent election will vote in
the special election i.e., eligibility will not be redetermined at the time of
the special election.

A committee member elected in a special election will serve out the remainder
of the term for the person they are replacing, regardless of the length of that
remainder.

[maximal-representation]: /elections.md#maximal-representation
[voter-eligibility]: /elections.md#eligibility-for-voting

## Quorum
### Resignation

If a committee member chooses not to continue in their role, for whatever
self-elected reason, they must notify the committee in writing.
justaugustus marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

### Removal

#### No confidence

A Steering Committee member may be removed by an affirmative vote of a
**_three-quarters supermajority of the
[fixed membership of the committee](#composition)_**.

Example:
justaugustus marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
justaugustus marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

* 7 (members) / 4 = 1.75
* 1.75 * 3 = 5.25
* Round up to the nearest whole number (6)
* Six (6) affirmative votes would be required to remove a member through a vote
justaugustus marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
justaugustus marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
of no confidence

The call for a vote of no confidence will happen in a public Steering Committee
meeting and must be documented as a GitHub issue in the committee's
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

To be symmetrical, we should explicitly allow the person targeted for removal to provide an explanation (rebuttal?) in the form an issue or a PR. That will stand out significantly more than a comment on an issue, persist better, and is symmetrical to the removal proposal.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

My personal opinion: no.

This isn't a trial or a debate. It's an up/down vote if the rest of the committee has confidence in the impacted individual to continue serving out their term.

I can assure you that the steering committee talks about everything going on with our community constantly, and the other members will be clear on the position of the person impacted.

This also doesn't restrict the impacted individual from speaking publicly, only that their statement isn't an official artifact of the process. We don't need to provide a platform.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Something about that position bothers me, I'm not sure what. I'd propose stating that the party in question will be permitted to post (in a comment) a link to a defense/rebuttal on their own platform, and that moderation won't delete it. Since we can't really prevent people from writing such a document anyway.

We don't have to give people a platform, but it's very suspicious to attempt to deny them a platform, too.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'd propose stating that the party in question will be permitted to post (in a comment) a link to a defense/rebuttal on their own platform, and that moderation won't delete it.

I can't get behind this either, as it puts restrictions on our moderation and CoC teams.

What I'm worried about is someone using this process/platform to post a manifesto/screed in their defence. I sincerely hope that this wouldn't be the case, but I also hope that this is a policy we don't need to use in the first place.

If the impacted person posts a public comment that doesn't violate any moderation or CoC policies, then it can exist just like any other public comment on the issue. I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to do that. My concern is with elevating or somehow enshrining their "right" to do that as some sort of artifact of the process that cannot be touched.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

An unhinged screed is actually good evidence that removal is correct? I'm not saying we should host it, only that we do people a favor by helping them find it.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

My point is we can't make them take it down / fix it unless we own the forum.

I continue to think you all are overtraining on the possibility of a CoC violating response. I don't see how that would help the person in question at all.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@lavalamp those responses rarely help anyone, but they're all too common (just look around at various Big Personalities that have existed in and around linux development communities for decades and the things they've said about queer people/women/disabled people/...).

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In general, sure, but as a response to an attempt to kick someone off a board? That would make very little sense as self defense. I'll change my mind given a few examples of such a thing, if you have them.

Copy link

@krisnova krisnova Jul 27, 2022 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@lavalamp no one here is going to take the bait and attempt to change your mind. That isn't positive nor productive. If this community is important enough to you, you are more than capable of researching the topic independently.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That wasn't disingenuous, but you don't know me and I don't know how to prove that in a short amount of text. Nor do I know how to express the sentiment in a way that sufficiently distinguishes it from people who are attempting to drag out arguments rather than trying to find some objective reason to conclude them, which is how I meant it.

Anyway, it's too late now as people are voting.

[repository][steering-repo].

The call for a vote of no confidence must be made by a current member of the
committee and must be seconded by another current member.

The committee member who calls for the vote will prepare a statement which
provides context on the reason for the vote. This statement must be seconded by
the committee member who seconded the vote.

Once a vote of no confidence has been called, the committee will notify the
community through the following channels:

* the [community mailing list][dev-list]
* the [Steering Committee public mailing list][steering-public-list]

This notification will include:

* a link to the aforementioned GitHub issue
* the statement providing context on the reason for the vote

There will be a period of two weeks for members of the community to reach
out to Steering Committee members to provide feedback.

Community members may provide feedback by the following methods:

* commenting on the GitHub issue
* sending an email to the
[Steering Committee private mailing list][steering-private-list]
* sending a message to individual committee members
dims marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

Steering committee members are generally expected to attend every meeting. We
After this feedback period, Steering Committee members must vote on the issue
within 48 hours.
justaugustus marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

If the vote of no confidence is passed, the member in question will be
immediately removed from the committee.

[dev-list]: mailto:[email protected]
[steering-private-list]: mailto:[email protected]
[steering-public-list]: mailto:[email protected]
[steering-repo]: https://git.k8s.io/steering

## Voting

In the course of the committee's operations, members will be expected to vote
on decisions within the body's purview.

These votes may be called on agreed-upon platforms by the committee, such as:

* a pull request
* an issue
* a Steering Committee [meeting](#meetings)
* a mailing list

For public business, the vote must be captured on an issue or pull request.

### Routine business

Unless otherwise specified by a process, the requirement for passing a vote is
a **_majority of the [fixed membership of the committee](#composition)_**.

Example:
cblecker marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

* 7 (members) / 2 = 3.5
* Round up to the nearest whole number (4)
* 4 members would be required to pass a vote

### Abstention

For any self-elected reason, members of the committee may decide to abstain
from a vote.

Abstaining members will only be considered as contributing to quorum, in the
dims marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
event that a vote is called in a meeting.
dims marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

## Meetings

Steering Committee members are generally expected to attend every meeting. We
use the following guidelines to determine whether we have reached quorum and
are able to proceed with a meeting.

* Round quorum up if total number of members is odd
* Quorum to meet is 1/2 members attending (eg: 6/12, 6/11, 4/7)
* Quorum to vote in a meeting is 2/3 members attending (eg: 8/12, 8/11, 5/7)
### Quorum

Quorum **to meet** is a **_majority of the
[fixed membership of the committee](#composition)_**.

Example:
cblecker marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

* 7 (members) / 2 = 3.5
* Round up to the nearest whole number (4)
* 4 members in attendance would be required to meet

Quorum **to vote in a meeting** is a **_two-thirds supermajority of the
justaugustus marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
[fixed membership of the committee](#composition)_**.

Example:
cblecker marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

* 7 (members) / 3 = 2.333...
* 2.333... * 2 = 4.666...
* Round up to the nearest whole number (5)
* 5 members in attendance would be required to vote during a meeting

## Inclusive Leadership Training

Expand Down