Gianluca Turconi wrote:
Hypothetical example: Google Corp. develops a large chunk of code for
LibreOffice. It's an important contribution, of course, and Google would
belong to the wider LibO community, but is this big contribution
enough to
join the steering group of TDF?
No - but it enough for those people at google, who contributed this code
to be eligible for a seat in the board. And it is enough to have a
vote at board elections.
Wow, that last sentence is *exactly* what I *don't* want. :)
Such informal approach is impracticable when a *real* Foundation has
to take decisions in
order to legally defend the base code, create a sure development
roadmap (or nominate who create the roadmap)
and decide about controversial alliances.
Stricter initial rules make stronger organizations in the long run.
Hi Gianluca,
hm, I guess most rules can be gamed, by any sufficiently determined
adversary - so I would favour simple, effective bylaws, and use
common sense otherwise.
Additionally, you want to provide the proverbial Big Corp some
incentive to join - note that this was one specific shortcoming of
the OOo project. If they don't see a chance to have at least some
say, why should they sponsor developers in the first place?
Gnome e.g. has the advisory board, where corporations (in contrast
to individual members) are grouped:
http://live.gnome.org/AdvisoryBoard
Institutional membership to Gnome has an annual fee (some lower
5-digit figure, IIRC), that allows the foundation to cover
administrative costs, hold a conference etc. Personal membership,
though, should have low/zero annual cost.
Also, with the proposed membership committee, there'll be humans
having the final say over who's becoming a member and who's not -
pick that group wisely, and I don't see much issues with the
process. ;)
Cheers,
-- Thorsten
--
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
Context
- Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define "Membership" within TDF? (continued)
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define "Membership" within TDF? · Sebastian Spaeth
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define "Membership" within TDF? · Andre Schnabel
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define "Membership" within TDF? · Sebastian Spaeth
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define "Membership" within TDF? · Karl-Heinz Gödderz
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define "Membership" within TDF? · Alexandro Colorado
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.