I rarely look at Discuss, but wrote the following on the psf-vote list that some comments reference.
As a Fellow and former Director, I will be voting against Change 3. It feels like too much consolidation of power in the Board alone, and only a simple majority of the Board, at that. This is not a good direction to go.
Perhaps the proposal cannot be modified for this vote. For what it’s worth, I’d agree to support a slightly different version that required unanimous vote by the Directors, but not only a majority. Removing Fellows feels like too significant to leave to a potentially divided Board. And honestly, even if a Fellow violated CoC, there is nothing stopping regular mechanisms of CoC complaints from occurring.
The entire effect of this does no more than exercise a symbolic sanction against a Fellow who is out of favor with the board—or rather possibly by 6 Directors with 5 dissenting. There’s no special power that a CoC-violating Fellow has beyond being one vote for the next Board, out of a few hundred voters (or I suppose being invited to the members lunch at PyCon; but even there, exclusion of a member from lunch for a violation is already permitted… likewise, for example, someone who refused the mask policy, or for other immediate concerns).
Yours, David Mertz, Ph.D.
Former Director, Vice-Chair, and Chair Elect of PSF
Co-chair of Trademarks Committee for 16 years (since its creation)
Original Chair of Outreach & Education Committee
Co-chair Scientific Python Working Group
Co-author of the Code of Conduct, and of the Diversity Statement
Former PSF Election Administrator (and the reason we use Appproval Voting)
It was quite a while ago now, but during my 6 years on the Board, it was uncommon for votes not to be unanimous. Only issues about which reasonable people could disagree were, in practical terms, subject to a split vote.
I believe removing a member should only occur over a grievance clear enough that reasonable Directors would not disagree.