Move Alumni to Prior CM Status

[shaeespring]

Check one:

• Semantic Change: something about the meaning of the text is different
• Non-semantic Change: Spelling, grammar, or formatting changes.

Summary of change(s):

Redefine requirements for active CM to be active member
Create definition of prior CM as previous actives that are no longer meeting requirement (Active), but can be given privileges if deemed necessary by the active CMs on a case by case basis
Clarify the expectations are for active CM, and becoming an alumni automatically moves you to Prior CM status
Organizes sections to follow the order outlined in 5.C.

[pikachu0542]

This seems reasonable generally. I do want to confirm though, if a maintainer becomes an alumni member and stops fulfilling the expectations, what specifically would change? Would it just be losing their access on the github repo? Would there be LDAP role changes? Im not opposed to the idea, but I want to make sure I have a concrete understanding of what would change if someone became a Prior CM

[shaeespring]

"I do want to confirm though, if a maintainer becomes an alumni member and stops fulfilling the expectations, what specifically would change?" - GitHub repo, ldap role removed, get kicked out of active maintainers GC, get removed from the ping if requested (though they should be able to keep it if they want), lose the ability to approve non-semantic changes

If we want to create a past maintainers ldap role, that's vibing by me.

[pikachu0542]

In terms of the actual proposed changes, I think its reasonable, especially from a security perspective.

In terms of more implementation details, I think we should follow how the RTP role works (for LDAP roles specifically), where we have a general "constitutional maintainers" role, which all active and prior CMs have, and then the active CM role, which gets you the github perms, the user group, the active maintainers chat, etc.

There is probably some bias because I like fun colored badge on profiles, but if we make this change, I would want to also make a change on profiles so that the general constitutional maintainers role is the one that gives the red tag. That basically mirrors how it works for RTP, and i think that is good because people who are no longer active still show up as maintainers on profiles and get fun colored badge, but perms wise they dont get any elevated perms unless given an exemption.

[mxmeinhold]

hmm. everyone loses status if no longer active? extensions don't come into play here

[IgorPolotai]

I personally do not agree with this change. While it makes sense for RTPs that are inactive to lose their credentials (since they get access to a lot of internal CSH things), Constitutional Maintainers only get access to this repo. I don't think it's that big of a security concern to continue to allow alumni CMs to have access and continue to contribute, if they want. We can see all changes that they do, so it's not like they do anything bad that we can't fix. What is the point in reducing the number of CMs that can work on new stuff? We're already begging people to review changes and to care about the Constitution, so removing qualified people who could potentially help is counterproductive. I view Constitutional Maintainers as people trusted to have a more knowledgeable role about the Constitution than your average member, who can help members create amendments, and educate members on rules and procedures. That skillset doesn't disappear when you graduate, even if it's been a few years. Right now, it seems that we're going down the path of making Constitutional Maintainers a smaller group that has more responsibilities and duties, when the status quo of "people who care more than your average CSHer" is perfectly fine and has worked well. What do we lose from keeping everyone who has been voted on as a Constitutional Maintainer as a Constitutional Maintainer? Absolutely nothing.

[shaeespring]

"What do we lose from keeping everyone who has been voted on as a Constitutional Maintainer as a Constitutional Maintainer"

It is absolutely NOT nothing. We are more likely to get Alumni who don't want to lose their status to actually participate.

The way I see it, we can go about this two ways to uphold the constitution. We can
a) Have Eboard vote to remove over half of alumni from their Maintainer status, as they are not completing the requirements mentioned in their job description
b) Create an amendment to move people who no longer NEED to do their job because they are living their own lives outside of college into a new status, where they will still keep their ability to help, can request access and easily get it if they actively want to maintain, and can be easily asked questions with no responsibility to answer if they don't want to.

I'm sick of hearing alumni complain that they are being asked to do the job that they have. Though this is not ready for bringing to house, because it seems that the extensions addition isn't complete, this is a major improvement from what we have

[shaeespring]

Otherwise, @IgorPolotai , make an amendment to remove the clause that if a Maintainer isn't doing their job that they can be voted out. Allow people who don't want to contribute to keep their tag anyways. Make it so that a maintainer can never lose their status, even if they decide to walk away. I will vote to fail for many reasons, but if that's what you think is better, let House make the decision

[pikachu0542]

Personally, I think this amendment does make a lot of sense, but for whatever reason, I still feel conflicted (and i dont really know how to describe why). As Shaela has said, the constitution as it is right now sets the expectation that all maintainers, including those who are Alumni Members, are expected to continue fulfilling their responsibilities in order to maintain their status. I 100% agree that we should not be forcing Alumni to continue contributing just to keep the tag, and I think these changes effectively fix that without completely removing status from all the people who have contributed and then graduated (or just chose not to become active).

I think if we implement what I described previously, where we have the "Constitutional Maintainers" role that everyone with maintainer status (current or prior) has, and then an active maintainers role for Active Members who are fulfilling the requirements, then I think I would be in support of this change. From what I can tell, this is literally just codifying that alumni can continue contributing but are not required to, and would not change anything about what we currently do.

[pikachu0542]

I'm sick of hearing alumni complain that they are being asked to do the job that they have

Not super important, but I feel like this barely happens? Doesnt impact what i said above, but I just feel like this is a weird point to bring up (unless maybe i am somehow just completely oblivious?)

[pikachu0542]

Should we change this to say "Candidates must be Active Members"? That makes it consistent with the E-Board and RTP sections.I feel like this also makes more sense given that this amendment would also be adding Prior Maintainer status for Alumni.