Dear PSF Members, the board has just approved an amendment of the PSF bylaws to remove the sponsor membership category. From now on, we will just have sponsors and no longer need to vote them in, hopefully making it much easier to sign up new sponsors. The next step is creating a sponsors WG to take over sponsor management. Here's the official resolution: - RESOLVED, that the Python Software Foundation amend the PSF bylaws to remove the Sponsor Membership category. All changes made by the Bylaws WG are listed here: https://bitbucket.org/malemburg/psf-bylaws/diff/bylaws.md?diff1=ba846896778b&diff2=fa6ce90a3f1376b2708bf76d87c70813f96e010a&at=default. Approved 11-0-0 via email vote 25 May 2016 and these are the updated bylaws: https://www.python.org/psf/bylaws/?20160525 (the parameter is just a trick to bypass the cache :-)) Cheers, -- Marc-Andre Lemburg Director Python Software Foundation http://www.python.org/psf/ http://www.malemburg.com/
On 25.05.2016 16:27, Matthew Dixon Cowles wrote:
Marc-Andre,
the board has just approved an amendment of the PSF bylaws to remove the sponsor membership category.
That seems like a big enough change to me that I'm surprised that he membership wasn't consulted. Can you tell me the thinking behind that?
We did consult the existing sponsor members before implementing the change. None of them opposed the move. As I mentioned in the email, the main purpose is to simplify sponsor signup. Sponsors will no longer have to wait for the next members vote to sign up, we don't have to run extra votes every time we have a few signups and the decision to accept sponsors is moved into a WG which is much easier to get involved in as PSF member than having to run for board. Overall, the PSF is moving more and more in the direction of trying to engage our members in the operations of the PSF. We're doing this by opening up WGs with targeted scope and so far, it's working well: https://wiki.python.org/psf/Contents#psf-working-groups Cheers, -- Marc-Andre Lemburg Director Python Software Foundation http://www.python.org/psf/ http://www.malemburg.com/
Marc-Andre,
We did consult the existing sponsor members
I'm sorry. perhaps I should have said: I'm surprised that the board didn't consult the non-sponsor membership. Can you tell me the thinking behind that?
As I mentioned in the email, the main purpose is to simplify sponsor signup.
That doesn't answer my question. I didn't ask why the idea is a good one. I asked why the membership wasn't consulted.
Overall, the PSF is moving more and more in the direction of trying to engage our members in the operations of the PSF. We're doing this by opening up WGs
That also doesn't answer my question. Regards, Matt
Hi Matt, This conversation took place on psf-vote@python.org with the voting members. I do not know off the top of my head if you are a voting member, but if you are, you should be able to access to archives here: https://mail.python.org/mailman/private/psf-vote Best regards, Ewa Director of Operations Python Software Foundation Cell: 415-319-5237 On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Matthew Dixon Cowles <matt@mondoinfo.com> wrote:
Marc-Andre,
We did consult the existing sponsor members
I'm sorry. perhaps I should have said: I'm surprised that the board didn't consult the non-sponsor membership. Can you tell me the thinking behind that?
As I mentioned in the email, the main purpose is to simplify sponsor signup.
That doesn't answer my question. I didn't ask why the idea is a good one. I asked why the membership wasn't consulted.
Overall, the PSF is moving more and more in the direction of trying to engage our members in the operations of the PSF. We're doing this by opening up WGs
That also doesn't answer my question.
Regards, Matt
_______________________________________________ PSF-Community mailing list PSF-Community@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/psf-community
From my best memory, it was a Sponsor Member suggesting it was weird for sponsors to vote. I could see a conflict of interest if there's a competing sponsor up for approval and an incumbent would have a contrary financial interest to vote against adding a sponsor.
This is strictly my opinion, but a board is constituted to manage bylaws of the organization. If there's any concerns of how a board or a director of a board is performing duties, the current election is the right time to address these concerns. Warmest wishes, -- Don Sheu 312.880.9389 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - My Python user group in June meets at Google http://www.meetup.com/PSPPython/events/231074707/ <http://www.meetup.com/PSPPython/events/230373146/> ᐧ On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 8:23 AM, Ewa Jodlowska <ewa@python.org> wrote:
Hi Matt,
This conversation took place on psf-vote@python.org with the voting members. I do not know off the top of my head if you are a voting member, but if you are, you should be able to access to archives here: https://mail.python.org/mailman/private/psf-vote
Best regards,
Ewa Director of Operations Python Software Foundation Cell: 415-319-5237
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Matthew Dixon Cowles <matt@mondoinfo.com
wrote:
Marc-Andre,
We did consult the existing sponsor members
I'm sorry. perhaps I should have said: I'm surprised that the board didn't consult the non-sponsor membership. Can you tell me the thinking behind that?
As I mentioned in the email, the main purpose is to simplify sponsor signup.
That doesn't answer my question. I didn't ask why the idea is a good one. I asked why the membership wasn't consulted.
Overall, the PSF is moving more and more in the direction of trying to engage our members in the operations of the PSF. We're doing this by opening up WGs
That also doesn't answer my question.
Regards, Matt
_______________________________________________ PSF-Community mailing list PSF-Community@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/psf-community
_______________________________________________ PSF-Community mailing list PSF-Community@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/psf-community
-- Don Sheu 312.880.9389 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - My Python user group in May meets at Redfin http://www.meetup.com/PSPPython/events/230373146/ *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE*: *The information contained in this message may be protected trade secrets or protected by applicable intellectual property laws of the United States and International agreements. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received the message in error. Then delete it. Thank you.*
Ewa,
you should be able to access to archives here: https://mail.python.org/mailman/private/psf-vote
I didn't remember that discussion and, grepping through the text there, I find a small number of hypothetical suggestions buried in a thread in which someone requested background information. That's not really what I meant by consulting the membership. Regards, Matt
I remember Cat Allman raising the issue of sponsors voting. ᐧ On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Matthew Dixon Cowles <matt@mondoinfo.com> wrote:
Ewa,
you should be able to access to archives here: https://mail.python.org/mailman/private/psf-vote
I didn't remember that discussion and, grepping through the text there, I find a small number of hypothetical suggestions buried in a thread in which someone requested background information. That's not really what I meant by consulting the membership.
Regards, Matt
_______________________________________________ PSF-Community mailing list PSF-Community@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/psf-community
-- Don Sheu 312.880.9389 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - My Python user group in May meets at Redfin http://www.meetup.com/PSPPython/events/230373146/ *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE*: *The information contained in this message may be protected trade secrets or protected by applicable intellectual property laws of the United States and International agreements. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received the message in error. Then delete it. Thank you.*
Hi Matt, I had sent to the list the specific steps we would be taking: https://mail.python.org/mailman/private/psf-vote/2016-April/000088.html I am sorry that the conversation and movement forward did not stand out well enough. I will work on making it more obvious in the future. That is all we can do - try to make it better next time :) Best regards, Ewa Director of Operations Python Software Foundation Cell: 415-319-5237 On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Matthew Dixon Cowles <matt@mondoinfo.com> wrote:
Ewa,
you should be able to access to archives here: https://mail.python.org/mailman/private/psf-vote
I didn't remember that discussion and, grepping through the text there, I find a small number of hypothetical suggestions buried in a thread in which someone requested background information. That's not really what I meant by consulting the membership.
Regards, Matt
_______________________________________________ PSF-Community mailing list PSF-Community@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/psf-community
Ewa,
I will work on making it more obvious in the future. That is all we can do
I'm sorry but it's not completely clear to me what you mean by "all we can do". Taken literally, that seems to mean that board resolutions can't be changed. But that doesn't seem likely to be the case. Do you mean, all that you are personally willing to do? All that the board is willing to do? Something else? Regards, Matt
Matthew Dixon Cowles wrote:
Ewa,
I will work on making it more obvious in the future. That is all we can do
I'm sorry but it's not completely clear to me what you mean by "all we can do". Taken literally, that seems to mean that board resolutions can't be changed. But that doesn't seem likely to be the case. Do you mean, all that you are personally willing to do? All that the board is willing to do? Something else?
I personally feel it was more than enough for the board to ask all the existing sponsor members if they care and finding out that indeed they did not. I'm very glad the board finally went ahead and made this change, which should have been made long ago. It makes no sense to ask 200+ people to vote every time there's a potential sponsor for an organization like this. That's a revenue source and shouldn't even be board business, but just routine staff work. It also makes no sense to try to drag disinterested sponsors into a voting role. As long as sponsors are made to pay before they are listed, and it's clear that sponsoring gives them no special rights, then I really don't see a problem. Anyway, I felt I should speak up as member in support of what the board did, and how it did it. - Stephan
On 25.05.2016 17:20, Matthew Dixon Cowles wrote:
Marc-Andre,
We did consult the existing sponsor members
I'm sorry. perhaps I should have said: I'm surprised that the board didn't consult the non-sponsor membership. Can you tell me the thinking behind that?
As Ewa mentioned: We did have a discussion on the psf-vote list, where all voting members are subscribed, prior to implementing the change. Does that answer your question ? If not, perhaps you could explain what you believe should have been done and wasn't. Changes to bylaws are usually implemented by the board. They can also be put up to vote with the voting members and for larger changes, the board will generally take that approach. In this particular case, this wasn't deemed necessary, as the change only affects the existing sponsor members and there was no opposition on the psf-vote list, nor from the sponsor members themselves. Cheers, -- Marc-Andre Lemburg Director Python Software Foundation http://www.python.org/psf/ http://www.malemburg.com/
I would remind Matthew that the long experience of many boards was that the membership generally didn't want to be bothered with the details of what was done on their behalf. Not having been involved for a while I can't guarantee things haven't changed, but I'd be surprised if they had, making Matthew an honourable exception to the rule ;-) S Steve Holden On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 4:42 PM, M.-A. Lemburg <mal@python.org> wrote:
On 25.05.2016 17:20, Matthew Dixon Cowles wrote:
Marc-Andre,
We did consult the existing sponsor members
I'm sorry. perhaps I should have said: I'm surprised that the board didn't consult the non-sponsor membership. Can you tell me the thinking behind that?
As Ewa mentioned: We did have a discussion on the psf-vote list, where all voting members are subscribed, prior to implementing the change.
Does that answer your question ?
If not, perhaps you could explain what you believe should have been done and wasn't.
Changes to bylaws are usually implemented by the board. They can also be put up to vote with the voting members and for larger changes, the board will generally take that approach.
In this particular case, this wasn't deemed necessary, as the change only affects the existing sponsor members and there was no opposition on the psf-vote list, nor from the sponsor members themselves.
Cheers, -- Marc-Andre Lemburg Director Python Software Foundation http://www.python.org/psf/ http://www.malemburg.com/ _______________________________________________ PSF-Community mailing list PSF-Community@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/psf-community
Steve,
I would remind Matthew that the long experience of many boards was that the membership generally didn't want to be bothered with the details of what was done on their behalf.
I would be sad to think that. I'm mostly silent because I generally think that the board does a splendid job. Today I had a question so I spoke up. If other people wouldn't do the same, I wonder why they would bother to be members. Regards, Matt
Marc-Andre,
Changes to bylaws are usually implemented by the board. They can also be put up to vote with the voting members and for larger changes, the board will generally take that approach.
In this particular case, this wasn't deemed necessary,
Thank you, that is an answer to my question. I disagree. In my opinion the matter is important enough that it should have been, and still should be, decided by the members. The reason I think that is that the approval of the PSF's sources of funding is an important kind of oversight. If the membership is to give up that oversight, I think it should do so voluntarily and unambiguously, not because of a decision the board makes by itself. Regards, Matt
On 25.05.2016 21:36, Matthew Dixon Cowles wrote:
Marc-Andre,
Changes to bylaws are usually implemented by the board. They can also be put up to vote with the voting members and for larger changes, the board will generally take that approach.
In this particular case, this wasn't deemed necessary,
Thank you, that is an answer to my question.
I disagree. In my opinion the matter is important enough that it should have been, and still should be, decided by the members.
The reason I think that is that the approval of the PSF's sources of funding is an important kind of oversight. If the membership is to give up that oversight, I think it should do so voluntarily and unambiguously, not because of a decision the board makes by itself.
Thank you for explaining your concern in more detail. This makes it easier to understand why you think we should have put this up for a members vote. Please note that most of the PSF's funding is generated not through direct PSF sponsors, but instead through profit generated via running the PyCon US conference. Those sources of funding have (so far) never been subject to membership approval, not even board approval. The PyCon US chair is responsible for those selections. If you have concerns about which sources of funding the PSF uses, please sign up for the sponsors WG to help with the decision process and policies. If you believe we should do a members vote on this, you can raise this on the psf-vote list. If there's enough demand, I doubt that the coming board will reject the wish to run a members vote on the topic. All that said, oversight over the funding of the PSF is one of the main responsibilities of the board and even if the sponsor selection is delegated to a WG, the board remains ultimately responsible for any decisions in this direction. Some background: The main reason members had to vote on sponsors under the version 1 bylaws was that sponsors gained voting rights. Otherwise, the board would have been able to take on this decision process by itself and relief the members from this duty (the board has in most cases done pre-screening of the candidates all along). Under the version 2 bylaws, anyone can self certify as voting member, so while sponsors now no longer have voting rights, they can still have employees, engaging in Python community work, gain voting rights. In the end, removing the sponsor membership class is not really a practical loss. Cheers, -- Marc-Andre Lemburg Director Python Software Foundation http://www.python.org/psf/ http://www.malemburg.com/
Le 25/05/2016 22:15, M.-A. Lemburg a écrit :
Some background:
The main reason members had to vote on sponsors under the version 1 bylaws was that sponsors gained voting rights. Otherwise, the board would have been able to take on this decision process by itself and relief the members from this duty (the board has in most cases done pre-screening of the candidates all along).
Under the version 2 bylaws, anyone can self certify as voting member, so while sponsors now no longer have voting rights, they can still have employees, engaging in Python community work, gain voting rights. In the end, removing the sponsor membership class is not really a practical loss.
Thanks for the explanation. In that light, the board's decision looks reasonable to me. Regards Antoine.
[Marc-Andre]
Thank you for explaining your concern in more detail. This makes it easier to understand why you think we should have put this up for a members vote.
the board remains ultimately responsible for any decisions in this direction.
I disagree. I think that the membership is ultimately responsible.
Some background: [an argument that I don't quite follow]
[Antoine Pitrou]
Thanks for the explanation. In that light, the board's decision looks reasonable to me.
[Stephan Deibel]
Anyway, I felt I should speak up as member in support of what the board did, and how it did it.
If I didn't know better, I'd say that that was consulting with the membership on the subject. <wink> Regards, Matt
On 26 May 2016 at 09:22, Matthew Dixon Cowles <matt@mondoinfo.com> wrote:
[Marc-Andre]
Thank you for explaining your concern in more detail. This makes it easier to understand why you think we should have put this up for a members vote.
the board remains ultimately responsible for any decisions in this direction.
I disagree. I think that the membership is ultimately responsible.
That was certainly the position of the original bylaws, but as the voting membership base broadened, each sponsor member vote was eliciting more "Why am I even being asked about this?" responses. By instead switching sponsor approvals to a Working Group model without any direct impact on the Foundation's future governance, it meant that: - members that wanted to be part of the sponsor review process could sign up for the WG - members that were happy to delegate the task to someone else would no longer be bothered This means both views are now accommodated - members that feel the Board is ultimately responsible for sponsorship review can leave it up to them (or the delegated Working Group), while folks that feel more personal responsibility for the topic are precisely the kinds of folks we'd like to see volunteering to join the new working group. Regards, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
participants (8)
-
Antoine Pitrou -
Don Sheu -
Ewa Jodlowska -
M.-A. Lemburg -
Matthew Dixon Cowles -
Nick Coghlan -
Stephan Deibel -
Steve Holden