Skip to content

Move Alumni to Prior CM Status #278

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

Open
shaeespring wants to merge 3 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
+11 −6
Open

Move Alumni to Prior CM Status #278

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
906ff1f
Move Alumni to Prior CM Status
shaeespring Feb 7, 2026
3bc367c
extension fix
shaeespring Feb 23, 2026
c5c9033
add extension fix
shaeespring Feb 25, 2026
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
17 changes: 11 additions & 6 deletions constitution.tex
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -729,8 +729,12 @@ \subsection{Modifying the Constitution}

\asection{Constitutional Maintainers}

\asubsection{Constitutional Maintainer Selection}
Any member may nominate a qualified member for Maintainer status to E-Board for consideration.
E-Board may choose to approve or reject the nomination by E-Board Vote with a quorum of seventy-five percent.

\asubsection{Constitutional Maintainer Qualifications}
Maintainers must be Active or Alumni Members.
Candidates must be Active Members

\asubsection{Constitutional Maintainer Expectations}
Maintainers are expected to:
Expand All @@ -743,13 +747,14 @@ \subsection{Modifying the Constitution}
Failure to meet any of these expectations is grounds for revocation of Maintainer status by E-Board.

\asubsection{Constitutional Maintainer Term}
Maintainer status lasts until it is resigned, or until it is revoked by an E-Board Vote.
If a Maintainer no longer satisfies \ref{Constitutional Maintainer Qualifications}, they lose Maintainer status and move to Prior Maintainer Status.
Copy link
Contributor

@mxmeinhold mxmeinhold Feb 25, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

does a prior maintainer become a maintainer again if they become active?

Maintainer status otherwise lasts until it is resigned, or until it is revoked by an E-Board Vote.
A Maintainer may resign at any time by notifying the current E-Board and Maintainer group.
If a Maintainer no longer satisfies \ref{Constitutional Maintainer Qualifications}, they lose Maintainer status.

\asubsection{Constitutional Maintainer Selection}
Any member may nominate a qualified member for Maintainer status to E-Board for consideration.
E-Board may choose to approve or reject the nomination by E-Board Vote with a quorum of seventy-five percent.
\asubsection{Prior Constitutional Maintainers}
Prior Constitutional Maintainers are those members who are no longer current Active Members and have not been granted an extension by the current Constitutional Maintainers.
Extensions last until the end of the Standard Operating Session.
The current Maintainers may draft rules and regulations specifying the rights and priveleges associated with an extension.
Copy link
Contributor

@mxmeinhold mxmeinhold Feb 25, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
The current Maintainers may draft rules and regulations specifying the rights and priveleges associated with an extension.
The current Maintainers may draft rules and regulations specifying the rights and privileges of Prior Constitutional maintainers.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@shaeespring shaeespring Feb 25, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We decided against this because Prior CM is just Prior CM. We don't want to them to have rules or regulations associated with them. We want to define rules and regulations of the extension to which we are granting a subset of Prior CMs

Copy link
Contributor Author

@shaeespring shaeespring Feb 25, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We are aware of the way RTPs have it, and don't like that

Copy link
Contributor

@mxmeinhold mxmeinhold Feb 26, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

hmm. An extension turns a prior CM back into a CM right? are they in some special status where they have fewer privileges than a CM, even though per Term they are a CM?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@shaeespring shaeespring Feb 26, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Maybe. Maybe they don't get access to the AI woman in the corner that tells members their actions are unconstitutional and revokes their membership. Or maybe in the future constitutional maintainers have the right to deny an E-Board candidates because of their previous actions. Judicial branch type stuff that we don't want alumni to be able to do

Copy link
Contributor Author

@shaeespring shaeespring Feb 26, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We want to be able to define what they can and can't do in the event that Constitutional Maintainers have more expectations than maintaining a Github repo and being available for conversation

Copy link
Contributor Author

@shaeespring shaeespring Feb 26, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

In the event that a constitutional maintainer needs to do things non-remote, and that becomes an expectation for all CMs, Prior CMs shouldn't be denied an extension because they can't fulfill that expectation, there should just be a rule where they only have to do certain things

Copy link
Contributor

@mxmeinhold mxmeinhold Feb 26, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

that seems like a thing that can be clarified if and when those expectations come into being? regardless, right now, there's definitely a conflict in having "Prior CMs with Extensions" given that a prior CM with an Extension is just a CM per Term

Copy link
Member

@pikachu0542 pikachu0542 Feb 26, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Would removing the term section solve this problem? We could also move the sentence about resignations to a different subsection in order to keep the ability for a maintainer to resign.

Copy link
Contributor

@mxmeinhold mxmeinhold Feb 26, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Frankly I don't think this is necessary, given there's nothing current that would require this. But I also don't think this solves the hypothetical requirement, since the additional things I figure would be responsibilities, not rights and privileges?

I think solving this is a bit messy, but I think it would be fair to leave the question of "group of people who need to do things in person" till there is a requirement for that group. That group could be an additional definition atop CMs, or a separate posting, but it also may never be necessary.


\asection{Root Type Persons}
The OpComm Directorship is responsible for overseeing the implementation of maintenance and upgrades to the CSH computer systems networks.
Expand Down