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.

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

Add policy for determining Project Director substitutes #61

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
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
13 changes: 13 additions & 0 deletions policies/project-directorship/board-meeting-substitutes.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
# Rust Foundation Board Meeting Substitutes

The [Rust Foundation bylaws](https://foundation.rust-lang.org/policies/bylaws) do not give any instructions on how a substitute for a Project Director who cannot make a Foundation Board meeting should be selected. Only the following is state in section 4.3(h):

> Each Director may designate in writing or by electronic transmission to the Chairperson or Secretary (which designation may be withdrawn in writing at any time by such Director or Member) an individual to act as a Director in their stead, whether for a single meeting or as a standing alternate. Any such alternate Director shall be entitled to (i) attend and vote at all meetings which the designating Director does not attend, (ii) sign all written consents in lieu of the designating Director, and (iii) otherwise exercise the duties and enjoy the privileges of the designating Director in the absence or unavailability of the designating Director; provided, however, that no such alternate Director may propose a vote or vote upon any Committee of the Board.

The Rust project, however, sets the following policy for how a substitute for a Project Director is determined:

* 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.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

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?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

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.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

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.

* The substitute is chosen by consensus among the Project Directors and Council members.
rylev marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
* If consensus cannot be reached the default is to not send any substitute.
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@

The purpose of this policy is to outline a clear and efficient process for electing new Project Directors to represent the Rust project on the board of the Rust Foundation. The process aims to achieve the following goals:

* Select candidates who fulfill the outlined candidate criteria in the [role description document](../roles/rust-foundation-project-director.md), focusing on new leadership and diverse perspectives rather than solely prioritizing the best candidate.
* Select candidates who fulfill the outlined candidate criteria in the [role description document](../../roles/rust-foundation-project-director.md), focusing on new leadership and diverse perspectives rather than solely prioritizing the best candidate.
* Strive for tolerance and inclusivity by prioritizing selecting candidates that everyone can accept over selecting the first choice for only a subset of people.
* Conduct the selection process in a time-efficient manner.
* Incorporate input from a wide range of stakeholders across the entire Rust project.
Expand Down