search

OBF / obf-docs

Official documents of the Open Bioinformatics Foundation
39 stars 20 forks source link

Allows for other projects to be grandfathered #60

Closed hlapp closed 5 years ago

hlapp commented 5 years ago

We have been approached in the past by a number of different projects about how to become an OBF member. That there wasn't a policy when they asked wasn't their fault, and hence arguably there should be some kind of fast-track path for those. This change gives the Board broad powers to grandfather pre-existing projects, but the most typical use of this will be in essence "fast-track" projects that wanted to become members in the past, by grandfathering them into Candidate OBF Project status instead of them having to wait for the next community vote to attain it, and then having to wait another year before they are eligible for a vote on Affiliated status.

peterjc commented 5 years ago

This seems a good idea for accelerating acceptance of such projects, granting Candidate status without the waiting period for full Affiliated status, ready for a community vote.

I'm not 100% sure about the board being able to add old projects predating this policy directly to Affiliated status without a membership vote.

hlapp commented 5 years ago

I'm not 100% sure about the board being able to add old projects predating this policy directly to Affiliated status without a membership vote.

For the Bio* projects it wouldn't be without a membership vote because the policy enumerates them and will itself be subject to a membership vote.

It is true that the current draft through this change gives the Board broad powers to add "any" old projects directly to Affiliated status. I'd argue that's fair if we have protections in place that ensure that the Board will remain benevolent, and not act unilaterally against or in ignorance of the membership and community. And the Board already has other broad powers, mirroring that principle, so giving it broad powers here too is, IMHO, not setting a precedent.

HLWiencko commented 5 years ago

We could allow the Board to add "any old projects" to Affiliated status, but have that project lose status if it hasn't been voted on by the membership in a certain time frame (1 year? 6 months? whatever period we roughly use for public board meetings?).

It would also be a good idea to put that measure itself to a vote (i.e., give the membership a chance to grant the board that power).

<> )-( <>

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 1:11 PM Hilmar Lapp notifications@github.com wrote:

I'm not 100% sure about the board being able to add old projects predating this policy directly to Affiliated status without a membership vote.

For the Bio* projects it wouldn't be without a membership vote because the policy enumerates them and will itself be subject to a membership vote.

It is true that the current draft through this change gives the Board broad powers to add "any" old projects directly to Affiliated status. I'd argue that's fair if we have protections in place that ensure that the Board will remain benevolent, and not act unilaterally against or in ignorance of the membership and community. And the Board already has other broad powers, mirroring that principle, so giving it broad powers here too is, IMHO, not setting a precedent.

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/OBF/obf-docs/pull/60?email_source=notifications&email_token=ABHKLSK2RA4YFKEZGSMPWWLQCF6PXA5CNFSM4IHJO2KKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD3HBFVI#issuecomment-516821717, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABHKLSIURFLFARSS2GAREP3QCF6PXANCNFSM4IHJO2KA .

hlapp commented 5 years ago

It would also be a good idea to put that measure itself to a vote (i.e., give the membership a chance to grant the board that power).

Well, yes, that's the plan by making enactment of the policy subject to a membership vote. Or is that not what you meant?

HLWiencko commented 5 years ago

Yep, that's it. I missed the part about voting on the measure itself, hence mentioning it, sorry. :)

<> )-( <>

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 1:18 PM Hilmar Lapp notifications@github.com wrote:

It would also be a good idea to put that measure itself to a vote (i.e., give the membership a chance to grant the board that power).

Well, yes, that's the plan by making enactment of the policy subject to a membership vote. Or is that not what you meant?

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/OBF/obf-docs/pull/60?email_source=notifications&email_token=ABHKLSMCTLSDRYGYRQ7WDWLQCF7JBA5CNFSM4IHJO2KKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD3HBW6Y#issuecomment-516823931, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABHKLSNUJOB3SG3BIL7WRCLQCF7JBANCNFSM4IHJO2KA .