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

Hi Michael, members, community!

Sharing my answers, thanks for the questions!

On 04.09.2020 08:17, Michael Meeks wrote:

* many MC members say they want to expand the membership.
  Given that LibreOffice is rather static in terms of its
  number of those involved in development: coding, UX,
  translation, documentation etc.

        + how do you plan to gain lots of new contributors ?

Let me clarify what I think about "gain new contributors" and "expand the membership".

About "gain new contributors", my perspective is regional. Years ago, some Latin American members agreed we should do a step ahead to growing our local community. In that moment, we saw we had many difficulties in Brazil (including losing contributors), but many potential in the other Latin American countries. Jumping to now, after a great first Latin American Conference and also a great Conference in Spain (which was too important for us too), we can say that our regional community (nowadays we have said Ibero-American) is much better than before.

About "expand the membership", I think it's a natural result of the "gain new contributors". Get *more* members is important (new people, new ideas, new goals...) but, as I told in my candidacy statement, my main personal focus as a candidate will be continue to work with the mcm-script to provide better support to our members.

        + Do you think we expand the membership by accpting
          more marginal contributions for membership cf.

        + what effect do you expect that to have on the project ?

I don't have difference (core or marginal) in my personal approach, as we have a non-exhaustive list of types of contributions in §10 b.) of the statutes. Of course the explicit types of contributions listed there are our main references to approve or deny a new member in the MC, but, in many cases, we should check applications in a wide perspective (for example, organizing an official conference, advocating for the project in a public/academic institution, managing a Facebook group with thousands of participants, etc).

* If you've stood before, approximately how many people have
  you encouraged to apply for membership ?

I'm going to answer in a wide perspective (as I'm currently a MC member). I already encouraged a lot of people to apply, from many different areas (counting successes and fails). No idea how many, but I'm glad to remember two nice cases: a translator who simply didn't know he could be a member and a documentation volunteer who had his application denied in the past because the language barrier.

* How many applications have you voted against ?
As in the previous question, also an uncountable amount since 2016.

* 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 ?

I think some actions like our Open Badges awards are interesting to recognize contributions from non-members. But I believe they are more related with Marketing/Communication than with the process of membership. In other words, it's a recognition for the contributor and can be a tool for the MC, but I don't believe that it should be in the formal path to reach the membership.

* 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 ?

Search for more information, asking for references to another members or asking directly to the person. Discuss until reach a consensus. Suggest he/she to reapply in future if contributions aren't clear.

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

I guess we could split it in small topics. I'm going to comment two here.

About applications, I think we are fine publishing our minutes with the current format (I mean renewed and new applications). I think we shouldn't publish additional information (MC member votes or comments in applications, for example) as they could be interpreted as personal information. There are also some issues related with the European GDPR. Unfortunately, K-J , who started to check it's implications in our process, isn't longer with us.

About other process, I think it's mandatory sharing contents and activities. I'm trying to do it with all aspects related with the mcm-script (as I presented in Almería) and other current MC members are doing the same with another topics.

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

I believe we can always improve a process, but I'm not comfortable to answer a simple yes or no in this case, especially if it could imply in changes in the statutes. If yes, we should check carefully not only all possible issues (remembering that, in both cases mentioned, we didn't have corner cases because one of the candidates involved decided to resign before the final announce by the electoral body) but also if the changes will be coherent according the German law.

        Thanks for any answers =)


Gustavo Buzzatti Pacheco, member of the Membership Committee
The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin
Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details:
My local Time: UTC-03:00 / CET-04:00

To unsubscribe e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
Privacy Policy:


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.