11 Feb
2018
11 Feb
'18
7:12 p.m.
On 02/11/2018 02:14 AM, Richard Brown wrote:
On 11 February 2018 at 10:13, Carlos E. R.
<robin.listas(a)telefonica.net> wrote:
I would add that adhering to this:
https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Guiding_principles#openSUSE_Guiding_Princi…
would/should be the PRIMARY qualification for Membership.
If up to me, it would also be that violating this would prompt a warning
from the Board of possible suspension of Membership, and in Extreme
Cases would result in Cancellation of Membership. (With an Appeal
process, of course.).
IM(Sometimes-not-so-H)O
--
-Gerry Makaro
aka Fraser_Bell on the forums, IRC, and mail at openSUSE.org
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner(a)opensuse.org
On Saturday, 2018-02-10 at 18:06 +0100, Richard
Brown wrote:
Seems good to me.
I have doubts about one part, though:
on what grounds would it be justified to veto a potential member?
If we go down such a road, I believe such disqualifying criteria
should be clearly defined and not reliant on interpretation.
This is a flaw we have in the current system - because we require
'sustained and substantial' contribution, candidates are often
veto'd/deadlocked because of a difference of opinion.
In the proposed system, the only question is whether or not the
contributor has contributed.
If they have not, then they can't be a member.
If they have, then they can.
I don't think we can come up with a clearer or simpler criteria. What
would you add?
* openSUSE Members will retain all of the rights,
benefits, and
responsibilities they do today (Voting, Emails/Cloaks Recalling the
Board, etc)
* Any openSUSE contributor can apply to be a Member
* The threshold for Membership will be reduced from "sustained and
substantial contribution" to "a contribution and a desire to be a
Member" (ie. not every contributor should feel compelled to engage
with the Project in this way).
* If the contribution can be automatically verified, they will
automatically become a Member. (New tooling here will be required, but
for example, a quick parse of the public mailinglists would be able to
verify a good number of contributions, be they through bug reporting,
package contributions, or support on the mailinglists)
* If they cannot be automatically verified, they need to be manually
verified, but only require a single +1 vote from the Membership
committee.
This is the part I have doubts: single vote?
And no veto possibility?
I think veto should be a possibility, but should be justified. And then
perhaps a third person would have to decide between the pro and against, if
the two can not agree.