Continuing the discussion from Gathering to discuss values, governance, criteria and process:
This topic defines and discusses the processes to join and leave the network.
1. Voluntary self-removal
- Hoster announces intention with a Merge Request to remove their organization
- 1 month cool down period
- mention of removal request at monthly meeting
2. Break of commitments
Incident process provoked: When the outcome of the incident process concludes a break of commitment by a member, this member is removed.
3. End of member’s service
It may happen that a member’s service cannot continue, e.g., when the member goes out of business, dies, or for any other reason that leaves their users without service.
- Evaluation of actual situation (active contact? Friendly or not?)
- Tag: dead-end
- Evaluation of “user recovery” to transit users to one or more members
- Go through incident process
The onboarding process is the moment where we can take time to know about candidate members and establish a sane relationship that will nurture the network and detect potential issues that we can work out together.
It’s critical that candidates demonstrate willingness to listen to and take criticism, and that existing network members show understanding and patience towards differing experience and opinions; but this is also a moment where trolls can be detected and avoided. So far the process has been very successful in guiding candidates towards a better understanding of what librehosters stand for through effective dialogue and steering candidates away from proprietary software and unethical practices, also showing what great practices we encourage. @realitygaps has been exemplary guiding candidates through this process and we should learn from his attitude with them.
Selection at the entrance ensures the political stand of the network: we don’t want to be only a technical network, but primarily a solidarity network: so we must make this clear from the start that joining the network means responsibility towards other members, not just a quality label. This spirit is embedded in the commitments set forth in the CPP proposal.
With @natacha we discussed the possibility to have existing members taking the responsibility of newcomers, voluntarily pairing with them as mentors of sorts. A “buddy system” could facilitate integration of new members and provide insight on emerging community norms; it could as well facilitate stronger interpersonal bonds and help document processes more effectively, as newcomers might be more inclined to question things members take for granted.
I wanted to remind the ongoing discussion about Approval process on the directory. This should be integrated in the above document.