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

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.
>
> Thanks
>
> Drew

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.

Marc


--
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