[steering-discuss] Request for changes of Membership Committee

Hi,

Dear SC members,

as today's MC meeting had to be postponed again we (Sophie and me) like to
suggest following changes for the MC:

1. approve all current deputies of the MC plus David Emmerich Jourdain (who
volunteered as deputiy but has not yet been approved) as full MC members.
(so the MC will have 6 members in total - curent deputies and David of
courrse need to agree on this )

2. approve that the MC should decide on applications in consensus with a
needed qurom of 2/3rd (means currently 4 members).

Reviewing membership applications is (imho) one of the key tasks for our
community - so the current situation is quite unfortunate. Sophie and me
agreed, that we should not take a decision if only two members are in a
meeting.

IMHO, it would be better if the MC were to be composed of more than 4
members... I feel that at least 6 to 9 members would ensure better
processing of MC business, and would ensure better quality
decision-taking (better assurance of impartiality, etc.).

Hi,

Dear SC members,

as today's MC meeting had to be postponed again we (Sophie and me) like to
suggest following changes for the MC:

1. approve all current deputies of the MC plus David Emmerich Jourdain (who
volunteered as deputiy but has not yet been approved) as full MC members.
(so the MC will have 6 members in total - curent deputies and David of
courrse need to agree on this )

2. approve that the MC should decide on applications in consensus with a
needed qurom of 2/3rd (means currently 4 members).

Reviewing membership applications is (imho) one of the key tasks for our
community - so the current situation is quite unfortunate. Sophie and me
agreed, that we should not take a decision if only two members are in a
meeting.

+1 to the above.

Best,
Charles.

David,

Hi,

> Dear SC members,
>
> as today's MC meeting had to be postponed again we (Sophie and me) like
to
> suggest following changes for the MC:
>
> 1. approve all current deputies of the MC plus David Emmerich Jourdain
(who
> volunteered as deputiy but has not yet been approved) as full MC members.
> (so the MC will have 6 members in total - curent deputies and David of
> courrse need to agree on this )
>
> 2. approve that the MC should decide on applications in consensus with a
> needed qurom of 2/3rd (means currently 4 members).
>
>
> Reviewing membership applications is (imho) one of the key tasks for our
> community - so the current situation is quite unfortunate. Sophie and me
> agreed, that we should not take a decision if only two members are in a
> meeting.

IMHO, it would be better if the MC were to be composed of more than 4
members... I feel that at least 6 to 9 members would ensure better
processing of MC business, and would ensure better quality
decision-taking (better assurance of impartiality, etc.).

I think it's not a matter of impartiality, but a matter of calibrating what
works best. There's room for improvement in the MC organization, and I think
it's good that the MC itself feels things should improve. Let's see what the
new changes would bring.

best,
Charles.

Hi,

as today's MC meeting had to be postponed again we (Sophie and me) like
to suggest following changes for the MC:

1. approve all current deputies of the MC plus David Emmerich Jourdain
(who volunteered as deputiy but has not yet been approved) as full MC
members. (so the MC will have 6 members in total - curent deputies and
David of courrse need to agree on this )

2. approve that the MC should decide on applications in consensus with a
needed qurom of 2/3rd (means currently 4 members).

+1 from my side. Thanks for your work on this!

Florian

Hi Andre,

1. approve all current deputies of the MC plus David Emmerich Jourdain
(who volunteered as deputiy but has not yet been approved) as full MC
members. (so the MC will have 6 members in total - curent deputies and
David of courrse need to agree on this )

  In principle I have no problem with the idea, of course I'd like to
ensure the ethos of hard contribution is not watered down and the
membership greatly expanded; so - any chance of a list of the current
deputies ? I'd also like to ensure that we have more core, and/or code
contributors in there - or perhaps I'm missing something.

  Who would the full list be then ? :slight_smile:

2. approve that the MC should decide on applications in consensus with a
needed qurom of 2/3rd (means currently 4 members).

  Sounds fine to me.

  ATB,

    Michael.

Hi Michael,

Von: Michael Meeks <michael.meeks@novell.com>

> 1. approve all current deputies of the MC plus David Emmerich Jourdain
> (who volunteered as deputiy but has not yet been approved) as full MC
> members. (so the MC will have 6 members in total - curent deputies and
> David of courrse need to agree on this )

  In principle I have no problem with the idea, of course I'd like to
ensure the ethos of hard contribution is not watered down and the
membership greatly expanded; so - any chance of a list of the current
deputies ?

http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Membership_Committee

I'd also like to ensure that we have more core, and/or code
contributors in there - or perhaps I'm missing something.

My primary goal is to have people at the MC who attent meetings so
that we get a quorum, and fullfill the duties given to them. But the
decision at hand is to the SC :wink:

For the moment we need a solution to keep the MC in function. But as
discussed in last SC meeting we need to change the MC setup anyway -
it needs to be elected by TDF members. These elections should be done
not to far after BoD elections and I'm looking forward to lots of
applications.

regards,

André

Hi :slight_smile:
It is 6 i think. The 4 arrives as 2/3rds of 6. It would be good to have at
least 1 person from each critical area of TDF. Devs, Marketing, Documentation,
Design, Users etc? Most people probably work in more than 1 group so i suspect
this is already covered.

Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

If you'd like a volunteer, I'd be happy to help with the MC - I suspect that the additional load now and during the elections will need an extra pair of hands.

S.

Hi André, hi all,

Dear SC members,

as today's MC meeting had to be postponed again we (Sophie and me) like to
suggest following changes for the MC:

1. approve all current deputies of the MC plus David Emmerich Jourdain (who
volunteered as deputiy but has not yet been approved) as full MC members.
(so the MC will have 6 members in total - curent deputies and David of
courrse need to agree on this )

when I talked to André about helping the MC, I want to make clear that just
offer me 'cause I understand that my fluency in some languages ​​can help in
the process. If you may evaluate, you can talk with Olivier, with Jesus,
with Claudio and some others that could talk to me (in person or not) that I
usually was the interpreter for almost everyone from BrOffice, in the FOSS
events. Of course, switching between some languages ​​during three or four
days, almost makes you forget to speak your primary language, but this
doesn't happen in the MC.

If it's necessary to be a deputy or not, I really don't know. I appreciate
and accept the invitation of Andre, but I want to leave this list totally
free.

If I can participate in this job with the MC, not being a deputy or being a
deputy, for me is fine.

David

Hi

when I talked to André about helping the MC, I want to make clear that just
offer me 'cause I understand that my fluency in some languages ​​can help in
the process. If you may evaluate, you can talk with Olivier, with Jesus,
with Claudio and some others that could talk to me (in person or not) that I
usually was the interpreter for almost everyone from BrOffice, in the FOSS
events. Of course, switching between some languages ​​during three or four
days, almost makes you forget to speak your primary language, but this
doesn't happen in the MC.

In my view, David is a good translator, indeed.

Concerning to the MC, I think that there must have *Web of Trust* and, here, we got problems in finding a connector for this WoT concerning to David. I think we need people without any problems inside that WoT.

Since the begining of TDF, he is using an untrue description in his profile at TDF's website [1]. I have warned core@ already, but this profile is still there.
[1]http://www.documentfoundation.org/foundation/

As he cited my name, this is my position about him.

Best,
Claudio

Hi :slight_smile:
Would his description be more accurate if someone changed it from ...
"David is the LibreOffice community representative in Brazil."
to
"David is a LibreOffice community representative in Brazil."

It is difficult to claim someone is representing any community accurately as the
whole point about a community is that there are many diverse, probably
conflicting, opinions and representing all those opinions in a fair way is very
difficult and possibly unlikely to happen. We do what we can but never achieve
perfection (hopefully). It is even difficult if the community votes on who is
to 'represent them'.

Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

Hi Tom.

In my view, anyone who contribute is a "community representative", mainly
TDF members. When someone describes himself as "community representative",
he's taking a "title" that doesn't belong to him. That could give the wrong
impression he's "in charge" of community's public relationships, when he's
not.

But I also think this discussion is taking a wrong path. I don't think we
must "judge" people for what they've done at this very moment. I think
Claudio's comment was made only to advise MC that this issue could become
"ugly" under brazilian community's eyes, with David in MC. It *could*, but
it doesn't mean it *will*, right?

Rgds

Hi all,

Hi

when I talked to André about helping the MC, I want to make clear that

just offer me 'cause I understand that my fluency in some languages can help
in the process. If you may evaluate, you can talk with Olivier, with
Jesus, with Claudio and some others that could talk to me (in person or not)
that I usually was the interpreter for almost everyone from BrOffice, in the
FOSS events. Of course, switching between some languages during three or
four days, almost makes you forget to speak your primary language, but
this doesn't happen in the MC.

In my view, David is a good translator, indeed.

Concerning to the MC, I think that there must have *Web of Trust* and,
here, we got problems in finding a connector for this WoT concerning to
David. I think we need people without any problems inside that WoT.

So, Cláudio!! if you don't help at all and don't let anyone to help...

Since the begining of TDF, he is using an untrue description in his profile
at TDF's website [1]. I have warned core@ already, but this profile is
still there.
[1]http://www.**documentfoundation.org/**foundation/<http://www.documentfoundation.org/foundation/>

about what Cláudio told, I already responded in another tread that this
information was included by the marketing team (not by me) and I left the
team completely free to change as they choose.

If you returned to this theme, or you don't read this tread, or do you have
bad intentions.

Again, the marketing team can change as they think better. As said before, I
say now.

And thank you for your cooperation here, Cláudio. You have helped a lot.

David

That's my point, Paulo. For MC, we need people inside the WoT, and that's questionable concerning to David.

Best,
Claudio

Hi all,
about what Cláudio told, I already responded in another tread that this
information was included by the marketing team (not by me) and I left the
team completely free to change as they choose.

If you returned to this theme, or you don't read this tread, or do you have
bad intentions.

Again, the marketing team can change as they think better. As said before,
I
say now.

I'm not sure about what those "bad intentions" it could be. The fact is:
brazilian community was involved into many discussions at marketing@ list
some weeks ago, and we agreed to attend some claims from TDF, and TDF ageed
to do the same on our claims. Our part of that agreement was done. But many
of our claims didn't. One of them was removing that description from you
profile. I don't know who is responsible for that, I just know that this was
not done.

But I refuse to start another battle like that in this list. Please,
everyone calm down and let's talk about the subject of this thread, ok?

And thank you for your cooperation here, Cláudio. You have helped a lot.

David

Cheers.

Hi Paulo,

> Hi :slight_smile:
> Would his description be more accurate if someone changed it from ...
> "David is the LibreOffice community representative in Brazil."
> to
> "David is a LibreOffice community representative in Brazil."
>
> It is difficult to claim someone is representing any community accurately
> as the
> whole point about a community is that there are many diverse, probably
> conflicting, opinions and representing all those opinions in a fair way
is
> very
> difficult and possibly unlikely to happen. We do what we can but never
> achieve
> perfection (hopefully). It is even difficult if the community votes on
who
> is
> to 'represent them'.
>
> Regards from
> Tom :slight_smile:
>
>
Hi Tom.

In my view, anyone who contribute is a "community representative", mainly
TDF members. When someone describes himself as "community representative",
he's taking a "title" that doesn't belong to him. That could give the wrong
impression he's "in charge" of community's public relationships, when he's
not.

I have answered this issue twice. The marketing team wrote and can change
back whenever they like.

But I also think this discussion is taking a wrong path. I don't think
we must "judge" people for what they've done at this very moment. I
think Claudio's comment was made only to advise MC that this issue could
become "ugly" under brazilian community's eyes, with David in MC. It
*could*, but it doesn't mean it *will*, right?

However, I wanna note that I was invited, just that!!
Then who is "beautiful" for the community's eyes, Cláudio? You, right?

David

Hi :slight_smile:
I think everyone so far is saying that while many people in the community hold a
certain person in high regards there is always likely to be one or 2 people that
don't share the same view. It doesn't make that person wrong since they have
the high regards of an overwhelming majority.

I think both Claudio and Paulo have written very positive remarks about David
and seem to value him. Claudio definitely mentioned about the superb work done
as translator at events and so on.

Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

Hi Paulo,

> Hi all,
> about what Cláudio told, I already responded in another tread that this
> information was included by the marketing team (not by me) and I left the
> team completely free to change as they choose.
>
> If you returned to this theme, or you don't read this tread, or do you
have
> bad intentions.
>
> Again, the marketing team can change as they think better. As said
before,
> I
> say now.
>
>
I'm not sure about what those "bad intentions" it could be. The fact is:
brazilian community was involved into many discussions at marketing@list some weeks ago, and we agreed to attend some claims from TDF, and TDF
ageed to do the same on our claims. Our part of that agreement was done. But
many of our claims didn't. One of them was removing that description from
you profile. I don't know who is responsible for that, I just know that this
was not done.

I agree with you. However, what Claudio want, disfiguring the subject when
the topic was explained a few months ago?

I'm not part of the marketing team, but what I'm follow, they must have very
little time, even to sleep. So, when they change the data, okay for me.

But I refuse to start another battle like that in this list.
Please, everyone calm down and let's talk about the subject of this thread,
ok?

I agree with you.

Best regards.

David

Hi :slight_smile:
+1
All things, however unlikely, are possibly possible. I agree that we shouldn't
spend much more time on this. I just wondered if there was a "quick fix" to
solve the issue but if it doesn't fix the problem then there is no need to drag
the argument back into the spotlight.

Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

Hi Paulo,

I'm not sure about what those "bad intentions" it could be. The fact is:
brazilian community was involved into many discussions at marketing@ list
some weeks ago, and we agreed to attend some claims from TDF, and TDF ageed
to do the same on our claims. Our part of that agreement was done. But many
of our claims didn't. One of them was removing that description from you
profile. I don't know who is responsible for that, I just know that this was
not done.

just so it does not get missed:

I recall the discussion about David's title, and indeed, this seem to
have been lost a bit.

However, which other agreements have been made that have not yet been
fulfilled? If we missed something, please let us know. I really would
like to have an open talk in order to avoid misunderstandings.

Working together, honestly and united, is crucial for the success of our
common goal, so if there is something you think has been promised but
not yet done, please let us know.

Florian