Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define "Membership" within TDF?

Il 19/10/2010 18.11, Charles-H. Schulz ha scritto:

[...]

> Well, I think that the split between these two visions is somewhat
> articifical. To be frank I don't think I ever had thought about this
> that way. And in fact I don't see why the two models you defined are so
> stringently different, but let's proceed according to your lines: why
> the model you see (let's put aside the model you think we see for a
> minute ;-)) is better than the other one. (I have no religion here, I'm
> trying to understand, and it's good because we're having a really
> important discussion which is not even an argument :-) )

Outside alliances and collaborations (the second model) are based on 
commons interests that can be very volatile.

They can diverge because of a job change, market evolution, new CEOs, 
graduation, family duties, and so on.

On the other hand, the first model involves a *legal* commitment, with 
stronger duties and rights, and a formal involvement in an organization 
that has not *mere* interests, but statutory purposes.

It's the same difference that there is between marriage and cohabitation.

They are two different level of engagement. Outside observers can see 
the difference too. Think about the difference in perception about these 
sentences:

"Google *joins* TDF"

and

"Google *collaborate* with TDF"

There is a completely different feeling of supporting strength.

Of course people and corporations can quit a foundation too, but it's 
surely less easy that kind of disengagement, just like people think 
thrice before divorcing.

Furthermore, a central independent association with its own council, 
that steers the Community efforts, allows not lo lose focus on 
Chrarter's purposes.

An enlarged "group" with a supreme committee may include people with 
very different and transient interests that may or may not correspond to 
the Charter's purposes.

[...]

> I don't think it's that simple. First of all, it takes time and
> meaningful contributions to become a member, and remember, memberships
> have to be accepted (see the lower administrative section on the wiki
> page) and contributions can be rejected on various reasons (the patch
> is not correct, the logo looks shady, etc.) So I think that this might
> not be the chaos that some here might fear imho... please advise.

Well, we're now talking about *meaningful* contribution and 
evaluation... ;-)

That's an important step ahead.

On the wiki a read: "all these contributions need to be non-trivial and 
last for a certain time frame".

Then, there's a desperate need for a clear definition about what is 
*enough* to join TDF: 10 lines of code? A logo? 1000 work hours?

A too low entry level increases the risks of hijacking, a too high entry 
level hinder the growing of the Foundation.

In a two level acceptation process (contribution + evaluation of 
contribution by current members) it's fundamental, IMO, to set a level 
of contribution for membership that can be considered *consistent* in 
time and/or work and is *certain*.

The contributor has a goal and the foundation still keeps a partially 
discretional "judgement of opportunity" about his/her membership.

10 lines of code or a logo? Too low, at least *if* there is only *one* 
class of foundation members.

Regards,
--
Gianluca Turconi

--
E-mail to discuss+help@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe
List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted