Dear all, Completely agree that there is a need for change and I accept the proposed measures. I do have one question or proposal though - there should be a clear definition on what is accepted or considered as contribution. For example is advocacy considered as contribution or not? Furthermore there should be emitted a clear message what kind of contribution is needed mostly in short and long term. Regards, Dimitar Zahariev openSUSE Advocate +359899605664
On 11 Feb 2018, at 12:14, Richard Brown
wrote: On 11 February 2018 at 10:13, Carlos E. R.
wrote: On Saturday, 2018-02-10 at 18:06 +0100, Richard Brown wrote:
Seems good to me.
I have doubts about one part, though:
* 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.
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? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org