On 12/02/18 09:50, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On Sunday, 2018-02-11 at 11:14 +0100, Richard Brown wrote:
On 11 February 2018 at 10:13, Carlos E. R.
> 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
> 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
If we go down such a road, I believe such disqualifying criteria
should be clearly defined and not reliant on interpretation.
I don't know at the moment. I just have the gut feeling that it may be
One member of the committe might have a good reason, and he would have
to explain to the committe, and then the committe would decide. Not
really one person vettoing the new member, but one person vetoing the
"one committe member decides to add this new member" decission, so let
us think it over a bit.
I think to protect ourselves against someone giving a +1 in a certain
case without knowing some information this is a reasonable thing to do.
It would have to be a pretty extreme case such as the person applying
had previously been banned from mailing lists for being abusive to other
The change I'd make though is, in such a case (or possibly in any case
where the membership committee may have questions) I think that the
person in question should be referred to and discussed / approved /
rejected by the board not the membership committee. The reason for this
is the membership committee is really an "Administrative" group that are
just clearly implementing a set of policies that have been put in place
and agreed to by the community where as the board handles all other
issues like this such as final moderation of mailing lists.
Really all this clause would do is prevent the case where someone is
added as a member then removed from the project shortly after as they
have been violating community guidelines. In the current proposal
someone could be on there final warning from the board for "violations
of community standards" and apply for and become a member (they are
active after all and currently thats the only requirement). By adding a
clause such as this it gives the board the power to say something along
the lines of "your on your final warning we haven't been happy with your
behavior to date, please apply again in a year and if your behavior has
improved we will accept you". This also still falls under the safety net
of if 20% of members feel the board has treated someone unreasonably
they can get a new board.
Really its a clause that hopefully never gets used but potentially gives
the board the power to make a possibly messy situation less messy.
+1 to everything else in the original plan
Simon Lees (Simotek)
Emergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek
SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30
GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B