On Sunday July 4 2010 03:51:23 David Haller wrote:
Hello,
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010, Stephan Kleine wrote:
On Sunday July 4 2010 00:55:03 Rajko M. wrote:
On Saturday 03 July 2010 12:37:11 Jan Engelhardt wrote: ...
But since you cannot quantify as to whether they do that, they should really be called Registered Member instead.
"Registered member" is OK for voting. Being contributor and real person, is enough for that.
"Core member" must show more in some of our activities, with quantity, quality and persistence. We can call it "Leading member", but that has connotation that we don't need. Lead is in workplace hierarchy here above workers, and has some commanding capability.
I'm totally against creating different levels of "members" since that just will open a bottomless can of worms why X is "only" a "member" while Y is a "super member" but X does more than Y, at least in the opinion of X or perhaps Z. Also it reminds me too much of that forum style by rating people based on their post count (which doesn't say anything most of the times).
If you contribute in one way or the other and contribute enough you can apply for membership which gives you e.g. the right to vote. IMHO it really isn't necessary to make more fuss about it.
ACK.
Language nitpick: "Distinguished Contributor".
Right :) (distinctive and distinguished are easy to be confused)
"Distinguished contributor" would be someone that has no continuous activity, but when is active we can see that.
Which just leads to having some definition for being a "Distinguished contributor" which needs to draw the border to being a "normal member" - as in it doesn't bring anything but just enlarges the problem.
IMHO people contribute cause they like to do so. If they contributed enough they can apply for membership. And if they get declined now they can continue contributing and reapply later and then get admitted.
I just don't see any problem with this and IMHO this whole discussion how to call it is somehow ridiculous and unnecessary - which is why I would like to suggest to rename "member" to "potato" and be done with it.
I think: leave it as it is. Or rename "Member" to "Lizard". That shouldn't evoke too much confusing associations in the context, at least not those of "member". "potato" would be okay too, but makes me think of debian. Has *buntu had a "lizard" version yet? Too bad, chameleon is such a long word, as the contributions of the "members" come in all sha[dp]es, too, and it's the actual mascot (who named it "Geeko" anyway? ;). Oh, "Geeko" also has an appeal.
I've been told that "lizard" is no option cause the chief of those "Ku Klux Klan" bastards is called "dragon" and therefore there certainly will show up some moron sooner or later that draws some dependency from openSUSE to KKK. Point being that whole "how to call it " discussion is just ridiculous cause it will just end in stuff like the last proposal to use philosophers as code names. I don't remember what was exactly suggested back then but that dude apparently was called a fascist by some - and I certainly don't care to continue that discussion, or if it was right or wrong - but it simply resulted in too much arguments and the idea getting dropped. IMHO just leave it as it is since "member" of $project isn't that mistakable if you aren't trying hard to do so or just give it some random name that doesn't have to do anything with anything - like "potato" since you can't insinuate a potato anything besides not liking its taste so that discussion dies once and for all. Sooo, either stick with "member" (I'm still waiting for some reason why "member" is wrong ....) or call it "potato" (just to have some name) and be done with it. Another option would be to allow everyone to make up ones own name - like "Evil Overlord" but then we would to have to define the "class" of those who could define their own name ...... You see where this is going? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org