Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-project (301 mails)

[Robert Schweikert <rjschwei@xxxxxxxx>]

On 02/16/2012 04:03 PM, Nelson Marques wrote:
> 2012/2/16 Robert Schweikert<rjschwei@xxxxxxxx>:
> > On 02/16/2012 03:26 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> > > On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 13:13:47 -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> > >
> > > > But you have drawn an incorrect comparison above.  You have not allowed
> > > > for that "member" who "places effort and time on openSUSE", nor that
> > > > "contributor" who is interested in steering and voting.
> > >
> > >
> > > I disagree.  Nelson's suggesting that "Member" be a superset of
> > > "Contributor" which is a reasonable compromise.
> >
> >
> > I would say that Nelson's proposal can be interpreted either way
> > (obviously):
> >
> > - Member as being a superset of contributor, i.e. contributes technically
> > and in governance issues.
> >
> > or
> >
> > - Member as being someone who contributes to governance issues only.
>
>
> Robert,
>
> Maybe it's a language issue, thinking on Portuguese and typing in
> English might lead to that... my intention with that intervention has
> one goal:
>
>   1) Neutralize the potential confusion between 'non-voting members'
> and 'voting members'.
>
> Given the current rules, everyone who contributes activelly can apply
> for membership, which is somehow a recognition for ones effort on
> improving openSUSE. If this this granted and labelled as
> 'contributor', then from that stage, those wanting to enroll in
> 'voting' or 'foundation' can for sure 'upgrade' it to member.
>
> A 'contribution' can be made in very different aspects, including
> translation, documentation, bug reports/fixes, code, marketing,
> ambassadorial work, etc.
>
> > Either way it is interpreted, it misses the heart of the matter.
> >
> > What do we do with people that no longer contribute (technical or
> > governance) but have done so at some point in the past?
>
> Not my fight (as in, I have no interest in that... it's up for those
> who raise such questions to find a fix, my intervention was just to
> try to improve terminology that might become confusing on the med/long
> run).

I understand, but that's the question at hand and the question that has 
been raised that we are trying to address and solve.

It appears to me that you would like to see a more "formal" recognition 
of a contributor such that we would have a 3 tier membership level.

- contributor
  ~ Formally recognized with e-mail address privileges and maybe some
    others but non voting. This recognition would follow the current
    membership application process.
- member
  ~ is a contributor with voting interest and maybe some other "perks"
- honorary member
  ~ people that no longer contribute to the project but have done so
    in the past, according to the guidelines in the proposal in the
    first message of this thread. Honorary members are composed of
    people that were either part of the member or contributor group at
    some point.

this appears reasonable to me and can certainly be incorporated into the 
over all "policy".

Later,
Robert


--
Robert Schweikert                           MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU
SUSE-IBM Software Integration Center                   LINUX
Tech Lead
rjschwei@xxxxxxxx
rschweik@xxxxxxxxxx
781-464-8147
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx