Some Eclipse Foundation services are deprecated, or will be soon. Please ensure you've read this important communication.

Bug 417884

Summary:	[EDP] Ambiguous "member" in section 6.5 "Grievance Handling"
Product:	Community	Reporter:	Wayne Beaton <wayne.beaton>
Component:	Architecture Council	Assignee:	eclipse.org-architecture-council
Status:	RESOLVED WONTFIX	QA Contact:
Severity:	normal
Priority:	P3
Version:	unspecified
Target Milestone:	---
Hardware:	PC
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:

Description Wayne Beaton

2013-09-23 22:32:58 EDT

Section 6.5 makes reference to a "member":

--
When a member has a concern about a project, the member will raise
that concern with the project's leadership. If the member is not
satisfied with the result, the member can raise the concern with the
parent project's leadership. The member can continue appeals up the
project leadership chain and, if still not satisfied, thence to the
EMO, then the executive director, and finally to the board of directors. All
appeals and discussions will abide by the guiding principles of being
open, transparent, and public.
--

In my mind, the use of "member" implies "member of the Eclipse Foundation" (as defined in the bylaws; committers are members). I believe that a broader "community member" might be another reasonable interpretation. 

I feel that this needs to be clarified. Do we believe that an individual must be a member of the Eclipse Foundation in order to lodge a grievance?

Comment 1 John Arthorne

2013-09-24 10:31:11 EDT

I don't see this as ambiguous. I interpret this as an Eclipse Foundation member, including committers and employees of member companies. Ability to appeal project decisions right up to the Board level seems like a fairly powerful right so I don't have a problem with it. I can't appeal to the Board of Coca-Cola just because I drink their products. On the other hand if you want to change it, grievances are so rare in practice that it probably won't matter if you open it up.

Comment 2 Wayne Beaton

2013-09-24 12:35:48 EDT

(In reply to John Arthorne from comment #1)
> I don't see this as ambiguous. I interpret this as an Eclipse Foundation
> member, including committers and employees of member companies. Ability to
> appeal project decisions right up to the Board level seems like a fairly
> powerful right so I don't have a problem with it. I can't appeal to the
> Board of Coca-Cola just because I drink their products. 

This makes sense.

> On the other hand if
> you want to change it, grievances are so rare in practice that it probably
> won't matter if you open it up.

I don't necessarily want to change it. I am encouraged that my interpretation of the meaning matches yours. Closing as WONTFIX.