Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2020 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Re: [board-discuss] MCC questions ..


Hi 

Am 04.09.20 um 13:17 schrieb Michael Meeks:

      ..
      + Do you think we expand the membership by accpting
        more marginal contributions for membership cf.
        https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Membership_Role#Contributing

As § 10 (3) of our statutes read "The details of the induction and exclusion from the Board of 
Trustees shall be regulated by a community by-law from the Board of Directors..."
So I see just a little influence of the MC on this. It's rather at the BoD to make things clear on 
this topic.

* Do you believe we should have a half-way house / badge
  between membership and non-membership that encourages
  a person, and gives the a path via more contribution to
  achieve full membership ?

No. Purpose? You do contribute - then you qualify for application. I've see rather the opposite 
view: People contributing a lot but don't feel that this qualifies them to apply. And even if they 
knew that they qualify, they often ask "Why should I do so?"

* When there are no concrete metrics (such as translated strings,
  code commits, wiki changes, ask comments, etc.) available to
  decide on a person's contribution; what is best practice for
  MC members vouching for their friends' contributions, and how
  should other MC members validate that ?

Interesting question. For example myself - no translated strings,
code commits, wiki changes, ask comments, etc. at least in the last few years. 
And there are even more persons fitting into that schedule (beside their work payed for by the 
TDF). 
Seems high time to discuss this community by-law.


* To what degree should the MC's decisions & discussion
  be transparent (ie. publicly available) ?

Afaik the decisions are publicly available and send out per mail to all members every three month 
:-) - and this is btw more than the BoD does ;-) .
The metrics used by the MC - as far as metrics apply - should be also available for the public 
(btw: Aren't they?). For the rest: Perhaps we need better defined criteria (c.f. community by-law). 
Normally these "soft" engagements are in public and so per definition traceable for the public. 
Other way round: Threw out Mike Sch. just because his work can't be seen (by it's very nature) 
publicly? At least in a few cases some trust in the decisions of the mc seems unavoidable. 
Questions or public discussion should always be possible, but not get the standard procedure.

* How do you believe we can improve the existing election
  system - assuming the statutes can be tweaked ?

To solve what problem? Wasn't this...

      + I'm interested in where we have the situation that
        being too popular can stop you being able to
        engage at all as a deputy - as we saw with
        Miklos/Jona in the last MC election, and Kendy
        in the last Board election.

...a clear matter of § 8 (4) of the statutes to avoid a CoI?

-- 
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Uwe Altmann

-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscribe@documentfoundation.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

Context


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.