Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2010 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Le 2010-10-20 07:30, Drew Jensen a écrit :
On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 10:33 +0200, Andre Schnabel wrote:
Hi Gainluca,

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*.

Ok, so may we agree to the general idea to this process (contribute ->
apply for membership ->  contributions gets evaluated ->  membership gets
approved or denied) but need to find a good definition what amount / time
of contributions qualify for acceptance?

Hello André,

I like the above paragraph also - as for strict or general requirements,
I would tend to favor general, it is IMO the only workable way to get
quality of contribution into the mix.

One question:

Beyond voting for the 'legal entity' board of directors, what other, if
any, types of issues do you see the general membership voting on?

I ask that to get a feel for the size of the group expected...more on
that as a follow up I think.



If all contributors are eligible to become members through the membership designation process, would you not worry that the size of the membership being so large as to no longer be an effective discussion/voting group. Maybe a consideration of a later group that would be an intermediary group between the SC and the TDF membership group should be considered. The larger the membership group grows the harder it then becomes to get consensus on voting matters.

I also like the idea of membership acceptance process requiring member contribution + evaluation by current members. I believe that most non-members would expect such a process be in place in order to provide some sort of "vetting" of membership application.


E-mail to for instructions on how to unsubscribe
List archives are available at
All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


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.