[opensuse-project] openSUSE Membership: a general comment
I've been following the thread about openSUSE membership with some interest. This is a general kind of meta-comment on that discussion. (I'm a Novell employee and SUSE old-timer, a constant user and promoter of openSUSE, a list-lurker, but not a contributor.) People who write about organisations often distinguish between personal power (which someone gains by virtue of their abilities, reputation, personal charisma and so on) and positional power (which someone has as a result of their job title, their place in the hierarchy etc). Open source projects have traditionally operated mostly on the basis of personal power: someone's position depends on what they have achieved, rather than any formal title or status. It's clear that a project like openSUSE (or Fedora, or Debian) needs some formal (and ultimately legal) system of governance, and a Board is welcome and necessary as a way of providing that, so long as its workings are transparent and open. But I'm slightly uneasy about the whole membership concept. When I try to analyse the reasons for that unease, I see that it's because a form of membership that has to be applied for and granted seems too much like positional power and therefore doesn't quite "feel right". -- ======================== Roger Whittaker roger@disruptive.org.uk http://disruptive.org.uk ======================== --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Roger Whittaker wrote: [...]
But I'm slightly uneasy about the whole membership concept.
When I try to analyse the reasons for that unease, I see that it's because a form of membership that has to be applied for and granted seems too much like positional power and therefore doesn't quite "feel right".
It definitely isn't a positional power. The need for an application is simply to be able to track them and assign the @opensuse.org aliases + the IRC cloaks. There's really no other way to manage it (or if you have a better idea, please let us know ;)). Granting is needed because not everyone should have that "membership" (again, the word doesn't exactly capture what it is, but it's the lesser bad one): it is supposed to be for active contributors and makes them representative of the project (which is what using the @opensuse.org email for writing.. emails is all about really, implicitly). If we gave it to everyone, it just wouldn't make any sense. The whole idea behind it is really to "reward" active contributors, give them more visibility and credit. And that's a good thing. I find it a bit odd that people think it's a disclosing factor for others, while the goal is really to reward and bring people forward. But maybe we just need to clarify that a lot more. What do you think ? cheers - -- -o) Pascal Bleser <pascal.bleser@opensuse.org> /\\ http://opensuse.org -- I took the green pill _\_v FOSDEM::23+24 Feb 2008, Brussels, http://fosdem.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHrBTyr3NMWliFcXcRAkUPAJ96yhLUlRP2e/wsmuKmRCPRciUjKACgrd4W kJkin1aSHiSCFmSZfRqx0jU= =1oFu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 09:38:10AM +0100, Pascal Bleser wrote:
The whole idea behind it is really to "reward" active contributors, give them more visibility and credit.
And that's a good thing.
I find it a bit odd that people think it's a disclosing factor for others, while the goal is really to reward and bring people forward. But maybe we just need to clarify that a lot more. What do you think ?
By their nature such things both motivate and exclude: that's just the way it is. I used to be keen on singing, and reasonably competant, but still not prepared to apply to a choir that required an audition. -- ======================== Roger Whittaker roger@disruptive.org.uk http://disruptive.org.uk ======================== --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Hi there! Pascal Bleser wrote:
[...] Granting is needed because not everyone should have that "membership" (again, the word doesn't exactly capture what it is, but it's the lesser bad one): it is supposed to be for active contributors and makes them representative of the project (which is what using the @opensuse.org email for writing.. emails is all about really, implicitly). If we gave it to everyone, it just wouldn't make any sense.
I agree with Roger. I think the whole membership approach and what you said in your email is a contradiction. One the one hand, you said that membership should be exclusive to active contributors and only people who represent the project should get a membership. This means, in principle only maybe a dozen people should get such a membership (unless you want to apply weak criteria, but then: where's the borderline?). However, on the other hand, you said...
I find it a bit odd that people think it's a disclosing factor
...that such a membership approach isn't a disclosing factor. I think that's a contradiction. Who decides about active contribution? Isn't somebody who helps his friends at home installing openSUSE on PCs and laptops an active contributor? From my point of view, yes absolutely. However, how do you want to "measure" his contribution? No board member will probably know this guy, how do they want to approve his membership? And is somebody who develops some code for openSUSE but otherwise shows rude behaviour worth becoming a member? From my point of view, no, not at all. Such a person should never be allowed to represent openSUSE, even if he develops a core part of the distribution. For me, it sounds like somebody wants to create an exclusive inner openSUSE circle, people have to apply for membership, people have to sign guiding principles, a board has to approve membership. No, that's from my point of view definitely the wrong approach. I will probably never become a member of openSUSE as proposed in this thread, but nevertheless I feel as a member of the openSUSE community and provide help wherever possible. I don't need need a membership for that, and I don't need to sign code of conducts and other documents. Things like that just alienate (some) people. Regards, Th. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Thomas Hertweck wrote:
Hi there!
Hi Thomas
Pascal Bleser wrote:
[...] Granting is needed because not everyone should have that "membership" (again, the word doesn't exactly capture what it is, but it's the lesser bad one): it is supposed to be for active contributors and makes them representative of the project (which is what using the @opensuse.org email for writing.. emails is all about really, implicitly). If we gave it to everyone, it just wouldn't make any sense.
I agree with Roger. I think the whole membership approach and what you said in your email is a contradiction. One the one hand, you said that membership should be exclusive to active contributors and only people who represent the project should get a membership. This means, in
No. What I said is that people with an @opensuse.org address do represent the project, in one way or another, which is quite obvious. When you send an email to someone, using an @opensuse.org address, you obviously are a member of the project (same as currently with debian, fedora, ubuntu, mozilla, or any other project).
principle only maybe a dozen people should get such a membership (unless you want to apply weak criteria, but then: where's the borderline?).
A lot more than a dozen already received aliases. Why "maybe a dozen people" ? What openSUSE community are you talking about ? Definitely not the one I know ;)
However, on the other hand, you said...
I find it a bit odd that people think it's a disclosing factor
...that such a membership approach isn't a disclosing factor. I think that's a contradiction. Who decides about active contribution? Isn't somebody who helps his friends at home installing openSUSE on PCs and laptops an active contributor? From my point of view, yes absolutely.
No, that's obviously not what we mean by active contributor. I totally agree that drawing the line is very difficult and it's somewhat subjective, as pretty much every process that isn't academic (and useless). I have the feeling you're taking a pretty rhetoric approach there. What I and other board members wrote isn't a mathematical function, it's plain text, which means that: - - a lot of things are implied in the eyes of the reader (you seem to imply bad intentions) - - communication isn't an exact science, we all communicate badly (I'm 100% sure that I misinterpreted a few of your statements ;)) - - a lot of things haven't been explained or given background yet So let's discuss this openly and if explanations are needed on why we do it this way or that way, we'll do our best to do so. And if someone has constructive ideas on how to improve the process, we're very open to it. It's not like we're always right and nor is it a dictatorship where the board pushes decisions down on everyone. We've started this initiative for several reasons (some being hopefully clarified a bit below), definitely with good intentions, and especially because we thought that active contributors are not visible nor rewarded (sort of) sufficiently.
However, how do you want to "measure" his contribution? No board member will probably know this guy, how do they want to approve his membership?
For people we don't know, we do peek at some statistics (e.g. email posts, skim through a few of those posts, IRC stats, web forum stats, ...). It isn't mathematical nor empirical nor perfect, but that doesn't mean the whole idea of giving away @opensuse.org addresses to active contributors is a bad thing. Rather think of it that way: if you (or whomever) think it's important to have such an alias (some think it isn't) and you'd like to have one, then it could be an incentive to contribute more. Although it isn't the primary goal (of the "membership") by any means. "Passive" users and active contributors are equally important to a product such as the openSUSE distribution, but for a community, I personally really do think that contributors are more important, because 1) without contributors, there's nothing: no distribution, no support, no information, no documentation, no translation, ... 2) from my experience, I'd say the ratio from user to contributor is somewhere between 50 to 1 and 500 to 1 -- what I mean is that contributors are a lot less frequent than users who profit [1] from those contributions but don't produce something that helps others [1] not meant in a negative sense, it's perfectly fine if people are "just" using our work, for two reasons (geez, itemized list again ;)): 1) we hope they will start contributing themselves and perpetuate the constant cycle that is so typical of opensource communities 2) the contributions we're making aren't just for ourselves, it's for the users, for everyone (at least that's how I see it and why I do it since several years) Note that the above is my very own opinion. Of course anyone may disagree, but it's rather complicated to explain so just don't draw bad intentions from it when you'll criticize it (which I know you're going to do). No, it isn't elitist. Yes, users are important too. Yes, every contribution is important but let's be realistic, some are more important than others. Yes, I really meant that, I do it for the <3 :P
And is somebody who develops some code for openSUSE but otherwise shows rude behaviour worth becoming a member? From my point of view, no, not at all. Such a person should never be allowed to represent openSUSE, even if he develops a core part of the distribution.
A precondition for being a "member" (again, the term doesn't match 100% but we haven't found a better one at this point) is to sign and acknowledge the Guiding Principles. And those state quite clearly what sort of behaviour is desired (well, as clear as Guiding Principles can be).
For me, it sounds like somebody wants to create an exclusive inner openSUSE circle, people have to apply for membership, people have to sign guiding principles, a board has to approve membership. No, that's
You're getting it completely wrong. It's the exact opposite. What started the whole thing is that the only people having @opensuse.org addresses were Novell employees (it was an automatic mapping @opensuse.org -> @suse.de). A few people (especially me IIRC) have then questioned why it is like that, especially given that Novell wants to blur that line as much as possible. If I take myself as an example, I do contribute a lot to openSUSE since many years, and I had the feeling that I had an equal right to have an @opensuse.org address just like Novell employees working during their daytime on the project and the distribution. The idea behind it is really to vanish the border between Novell employees and non-Novell employees who are contributing to the openSUSE project at large. But clearly, to take your example above, "only" installing openSUSE on a friend's PC can't really be seen as an active contribution in the light of what a lot of other people are doing -- I mean, sure, cool thing, but it doesn't equally weigh into the balance as someone who contributes code or artwork to openSUSE tools, builds and maintains packages, writes and/or translates pages on the openSUSE wiki, helps and/or moderates users on mailing-lists/web forums/IRC channels, organizes openSUSE events or local openSUSE groups, etc... I hope you see the pattern. Again, yes, it's sometimes difficult to draw the line somewhere and, yes, it's subjective in certain cases, but I guess that's all we have. Metrics wouldn't necessarily be better either (even though we use some to get an idea of what people we don't know from our own work in the community actually contribute).
from my point of view definitely the wrong approach. I will probably never become a member of openSUSE as proposed in this thread, but nevertheless I feel as a member of the openSUSE community and provide help wherever possible. I don't need need a membership for that, and I don't need to sign code of conducts and other documents. Things like that just alienate (some) people.
Seems to alienate you in this case. But there are always naysayers, that's OK ;) Really, I think you're seeing it from the wrong side of things. As I wrote already, the goal is not to discredit or push away those who don't contribute at all (let's call them "plain users"), nor create a "closed club" (that's really ridiculous if you look at the reason we started it in the first place). Maybe you shouldn't imply bad/evil intentions in the first place. If you don't think having an @opensuse.org email address is a good thing then that's perfectly fine, simply don't request one. It does NOT mean you're NOT a contributor :) Please read that again: NOT having @opensuse.org does NOT mean you're NOT a contributor. Sorry for this email being way too long but I'm afraid you're being very picky on words and hence, I try to clarify a few things as much as possible (I said "try", it's communication and we're human after all, hence we all suck at it ;)). cheers - -- -o) Pascal Bleser <pascal.bleser@opensuse.org> /\\ http://opensuse.org -- I took the green pill _\_v FOSDEM::23+24 Feb 2008, Brussels, http://fosdem.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHrOoRr3NMWliFcXcRAtOGAJ4+HWIi5btrOHA8ruihojGhKVu0mACfZ4Nf BTbcHSvCFBC0ip+qqyA/cTI= =tFmM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Saturday 09 February 2008 00:47:29 Pascal Bleser wrote:
The idea behind it is really to vanish the border between Novell employees and non-Novell employees who are contributing to the openSUSE project at large.
That's completely to the point. You don't have to be a Novell employee to be a contributor to openSUSE. Whatever we can do to stress that and tear down walls between inside and outside of Novell improves the openSUSE community and will bring the project forward. That we now have a mechanism to give opensuse.org mail addresses to Novell-external people is one great step.
But clearly, to take your example above, "only" installing openSUSE on a friend's PC can't really be seen as an active contribution in the light of what a lot of other people are doing -- I mean, sure, cool thing, but it doesn't equally weigh into the balance as someone who contributes code or artwork to openSUSE tools, builds and maintains packages, writes and/or translates pages on the openSUSE wiki, helps and/or moderates users on mailing-lists/web forums/IRC channels, organizes openSUSE events or local openSUSE groups, etc... I hope you see the pattern.
I think installing openSUSE on a friend's PC and so getting a new user for openSUSE is a fantastic contribution to openSUSE. I would consider everybody who does that as part of the community and member of the project. Of course other contributions might consume more time, require more skills, or might be more relevant in terms of the overall project. This should be recognized and this also certainly can be the criteria for giving somebody an opensuse.org mail address or not. But in my view it's really important that there is not the slightest doubt that the openSUSE community is welcoming everybody who is contributing, even if the contribution might be tiny at first. The board should not decide who is in and who is out. This impression would be very wrong and I know that the board doesn't want to create this impression. But that's the reason why we should try to communicate this in the best possible way. -- Cornelius Schumacher <cschum@suse.de> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Sat, 9 Feb 2008, Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
On Saturday 09 February 2008 00:47:29 Pascal Bleser wrote:
The idea behind it is really to vanish the border between Novell employees and non-Novell employees who are contributing to the openSUSE project at large.
That's completely to the point. You don't have to be a Novell employee to be a contributor to openSUSE. Whatever we can do to stress that and tear down walls between inside and outside of Novell improves the openSUSE community and will bring the project forward. That we now have a mechanism to give opensuse.org mail addresses to Novell-external people is one great step.
I really want to have the line blurred. I want to be a member of the community, but I have had my email address for over 20 years(all though whois shows 1994), I really do not want an opensuse.org address or an IRC cloak. I do contribute to the community. I have a BS account and do some packaging. I do want a say in the voting of the board. So I think there should be a catagory for those of us that are contributing, but do not want the email address or IRC cloak. -- Boyd Gerber <gerberb@zenez.com> ZENEZ 1042 East Fort Union #135, Midvale Utah 84047 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Fri, 2008-02-08 at 18:44 -0700, Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote:
On Sat, 9 Feb 2008, Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
On Saturday 09 February 2008 00:47:29 Pascal Bleser wrote:
The idea behind it is really to vanish the border between Novell employees and non-Novell employees who are contributing to the openSUSE project at large.
That's completely to the point. You don't have to be a Novell employee to be a contributor to openSUSE. Whatever we can do to stress that and tear down walls between inside and outside of Novell improves the openSUSE community and will bring the project forward. That we now have a mechanism to give opensuse.org mail addresses to Novell-external people is one great step.
I really want to have the line blurred. I want to be a member of the community, but I have had my email address for over 20 years(all though whois shows 1994), I really do not want an opensuse.org address or an IRC cloak. I do contribute to the community. I have a BS account and do some packaging. I do want a say in the voting of the board. So I think there should be a catagory for those of us that are contributing, but do not want the email address or IRC cloak.
-- Boyd Gerber <gerberb@zenez.com>
I don't think there's anything that requires you to use the email address/cloak. If you become a member, you would still be listed on the Members page, and thus get the recognition you deserved as a contributor. The email and cloak are perks of membership, to be used wisely if used at all, of course. Bryen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On 09/02/2008, Bryen <suseROCKS@bryen.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2008-02-08 at 18:44 -0700, Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote:
I really want to have the line blurred. I want to be a member of the community, but I have had my email address for over 20 years(all though whois shows 1994), I really do not want an opensuse.org address or an IRC cloak. I do contribute to the community. I have a BS account and do some packaging. I do want a say in the voting of the board. So I think there should be a catagory for those of us that are contributing, but do not want the email address or IRC cloak.
-- Boyd Gerber <gerberb@zenez.com>
I don't think there's anything that requires you to use the email address/cloak. If you become a member, you would still be listed on the Members page, and thus get the recognition you deserved as a contributor. The email and cloak are perks of membership, to be used wisely if used at all, of course.
Indeed, and please don't read my personal opinions and speculation about voting as factual information. I am not even a member, have no more information than you. The only canonical information is on http://en.opensuse.org/Members and emails from Francis/Pascal. Thanks -- Benjamin Weber --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Boyd Lynn Gerber <gerberb@zenez.com> writes:
I really want to have the line blurred. I want to be a member of the community, but I have had my email address for over 20 years(all though whois shows 1994), I really do not want an opensuse.org address or an IRC cloak. I do contribute to the community. I have a BS account and do some packaging. I do want a say in the voting of the board. So I think there should be a catagory for those of us that are contributing, but do not want the email address or IRC cloak.
You could have the address but do not need to use it ;-) It's an offer - many people had asked me for having an opensuse.org email address and I refused everbody. We really want to have this somehow open and objective - and not something like "AJ gives addresses out to those that spend him a beer" ;-) We're open to any changes of the policy, I hear some complaints and I understand them - but I'm lost on how to improve this, Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, Director Platform / openSUSE, aj@suse.de SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
Hi Pascal, thanks for your swift reply. Since the discussion has already moved on, I will only respond to some core parts of your email. Other things might have already been discussed by other people. Pascal Bleser wrote:
[...] No, that's obviously not what we mean by active contributor. [...]
For people we don't know, we do peek at some statistics (e.g. email posts, skim through a few of those posts, IRC stats, web forum stats, ...). It isn't mathematical nor empirical nor perfect, but that doesn't mean the whole idea of giving away @opensuse.org addresses to active contributors is a bad thing.
Rather think of it that way: if you (or whomever) think it's important to have such an alias (some think it isn't) and you'd like to have one, then it could be an incentive to contribute more. Although it isn't the primary goal (of the "membership") by any means.
"Passive" users and active contributors are equally important to a product such as the openSUSE distribution, but for a community, I personally really do think that contributors are more important, because 1) without contributors, there's nothing: no distribution, no support, no information, no documentation, no translation, ... 2) from my experience, I'd say the ratio from user to contributor is somewhere between 50 to 1 and 500 to 1 -- what I mean is that contributors are a lot less frequent than users who profit [1] from those contributions but don't produce something that helps others
I think here we come to the point. I am somewhat uneasy with your criteria. By reading your emails, you seem to measure (or at least try to measure) contributions in terms of absolute values (IRC stats, email posts, etc.). This, from my point of view, is not such a good idea in a large and open community project. It's fairly obvious that, say, a Novell employee who's being paid to work on openSUSE for 8h a day can contribute a lot more in terms of absolute value (for instance, number of RPM packages maintained) to the project. It's maybe also not really surprising that a student with lots of spare time (No offence! I've also studied at a university and I know it can be hard work) can maintain/change/create more Wiki pages than others, i.e. his contribution in absolute terms is easily measurable. However, if somebody has a 70h week at work (non Linux-related) but nevertheless is willing and able to spend 4h over the weekend on spreading the word, helping friends with openSUSE, maybe contributing a few good emails on a openSUSE mailing list, I think this contribution to the project is just as valuable and maybe even more impressive in relative terms - you are of course right that the absolute contribution in those 4h over the weekend might only be minor. For me, the membership approach you took disregards these very valuable contributions of many people at the base of the openSUSE community. According to your criteria of absolute values of contribution, those people in principle aren't considered as members. That's what I don't like, and that's the reason why I feel that the current approach sets a wrong sign. I appreciate your work and that the board comes up with ideas. Unfortunately, and that might have been caused by emails from board members on this list, there seem to be a problem in communicating your ideas. When a board member proposes a code of conduct which leads to a diverse discussion with pros and cons, and one week later without having a clear conclusion the code is published as adopted, then it doesn't sound as if the board listened to the community. I can see the same problem now here in the membership discussion. I am sorry if I misunderstand your ideas. I don't think I am against a membership per se, and I am certainly not considering it as evil, but as mentioned above it seems as if my criteria for "member" differ significantly from the board's criteria, and that's why I am not in favour of it at the moment. Regards, Thomas --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Thomas Hertweck <Thomas.Hertweck@web.de> writes:
[...] It's fairly obvious that, say, a Novell employee who's being paid to work on openSUSE for 8h a day can contribute a lot more in terms of absolute value (for instance, number of RPM packages maintained) to the project. It's maybe also not really surprising that a student with lots of spare time (No offence! I've also studied at a university and I know it can be hard work) can maintain/change/create more Wiki pages than others, i.e. his contribution in absolute terms is easily measurable. However, if somebody has a 70h week at work (non Linux-related) but nevertheless is willing and able to spend 4h over the weekend on spreading the word, helping friends with openSUSE, maybe contributing a few good emails on a openSUSE mailing list, I think this contribution to the project is just as valuable and maybe even more impressive in relative terms - you are of course right that the absolute contribution in those 4h over the weekend might only be minor.
What I'd like to see is regular contribution - and not 4 hours and then disappearing for three years.
For me, the membership approach you took disregards these very valuable contributions of many people at the base of the openSUSE community. According to your criteria of absolute values of contribution, those people in principle aren't considered as members. That's what I don't like, and that's the reason why I feel that the current approach sets a wrong sign.
Is the above really the problem for you?
I appreciate your work and that the board comes up with ideas. Unfortunately, and that might have been caused by emails from board members on this list, there seem to be a problem in communicating your ideas. When a board member proposes a code of conduct which leads to a diverse discussion with pros and cons, and one week later without having a clear conclusion the code is published as adopted, then it doesn't sound as if the board listened to the community. I can see the same
Please reread the discussion again - we're back at the drawing board for the code of conduct. There's now a new proposal out. I do agree that we screwed up with the Code of Conduct discussion.
problem now here in the membership discussion. I am sorry if I misunderstand your ideas. I don't think I am against a membership per se, and I am certainly not considering it as evil, but as mentioned above it seems as if my criteria for "member" differ significantly from the board's criteria, and that's why I am not in favour of it at the moment.
Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, Director Platform / openSUSE, aj@suse.de SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
Hi Andreas, thanks for your email. Since you addressed me directly, I'll have to write another email in this thread although I wanted to stay out ;-) Andreas Jaeger wrote:
Thomas Hertweck <Thomas.Hertweck@web.de> writes:
[...] What I'd like to see is regular contribution - and not 4 hours and then disappearing for three years.
Absolutely. I fully agree with you here.
For me, the membership approach you took disregards these very valuable contributions of many people at the base of the openSUSE community. According to your criteria of absolute values of contribution, those people in principle aren't considered as members. That's what I don't like, and that's the reason why I feel that the current approach sets a wrong sign.
Is the above really the problem for you?
As mentioned in other emails, I can see several problems: the somewhat "exclusive" membership in itself, the criteria for membership, and the wording (these problems might be related, of course). To answer your question above: yes, I think in an open community it's not such a good idea to exclude people that provide a perhaps small (in absolute terms) but (see above) regular contribution. That's not my understanding of welcoming everybody and motivating people. Everybody usually starts with small contributions. A fourth problem, I mentioned in the course of the discussion: I think there has been a problem in communicating the ideas behind the approach the board took. It's similar to the situation when infos about the Novell-MS deal were published - in the beginning, the situation was not clear and the explanations were somewhat confuse, therefore some people were pretty upset about the deal. It's very difficult to correct these things later on. I think a fifth problem was mentioned by Roger and Cornelius, the voting process (board has to approve members, members elect board -> closed cycle). I would like to suggest that official emails from the board should really be drafted very carefully, and it would be good if people could also understand from these emails the reasons why the board took certain decisions in the way they did. If you only see the final results but not the story in the background and the way that led to the final result, it often is quite difficult to follow, at least for those who try to look at it in more detail (others might take things for granted though). Regards, Th. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Feb 8, 2008 8:37 PM, Thomas Hertweck <Thomas.Hertweck@web.de> wrote:
Hi there!
Pascal Bleser wrote:
[...] Granting is needed because not everyone should have that "membership" (again, the word doesn't exactly capture what it is, but it's the lesser bad one): it is supposed to be for active contributors and makes them representative of the project (which is what using the @opensuse.org email for writing.. emails is all about really, implicitly). If we gave it to everyone, it just wouldn't make any sense.
I agree with Roger. I think the whole membership approach and what you said in your email is a contradiction. One the one hand, you said that membership should be exclusive to active contributors and only people who represent the project should get a membership. This means, in principle only maybe a dozen people should get such a membership (unless you want to apply weak criteria, but then: where's the borderline?). However, on the other hand, you said...
I find it a bit odd that people think it's a disclosing factor
...that such a membership approach isn't a disclosing factor. I think that's a contradiction. Who decides about active contribution?
Did you check the wiki page? The board decides. The examples of the contributions mentioned are all in general reasonably verifiable. Someone installing openSUSE for other friends does not qualify in this sense, at all. Furthermore, you do not need a 100% distinct and clear outline in order to pose a criteria. As it starts, the board decides. We have all said from the very beginning that we're open to changing it if it doesn't scale well or isn't appropriate. However, that does not seem to be the case so far.
Isn't somebody who helps his friends at home installing openSUSE on PCs and laptops an active contributor? From my point of view, yes absolutely.
From our point-of-view, by the way we've defined and think of contribution, no it's not. I had the word "verifiable" contribution in the wiki before, but took it out because I thought some people were being too put off by it. So far, 98% of the candidates we've had have been perfectly appropriate.
By contribution we generally mean those exact points mentioned on the wiki page.
However, how do you want to "measure" his contribution? No board member will probably know this guy, how do they want to approve his membership?
We won't?
And is somebody who develops some code for openSUSE but otherwise shows rude behaviour worth becoming a member? From my point of view, no, not at all. Such a person should never be allowed to represent openSUSE, even if he develops a core part of the distribution.
This is an ongoing question. If their behaviour is really bad we probably don't want them in the community at all anyway.
For me, it sounds like somebody wants to create an exclusive inner openSUSE circle, people have to apply for membership, people have to sign guiding principles, a board has to approve membership.
Let's be clear: there are no secret tea parties for members, no extra events, no secret mailing list. If having an @o.o email address and an IRC cloak is an "inner circle" then fine -- we're busted. When you use "exclusive" in a loose sense like that it's not negative in any way. The guiding principles are a set of principles that we want people in the community to abide by. In general, they're pretty much common sense. You shouldn't be surprised that a community will ask you to abide by their rules if you want to be in it.
No, that's from my point of view definitely the wrong approach. I will probably never become a member of openSUSE as proposed in this thread, but nevertheless I feel as a member of the openSUSE community and provide help wherever possible. I don't need need a membership for that, and I don't need to sign code of conducts and other documents.
Then, by all means, don't. No-one is forcing you into anything.
Things like that just alienate (some) people.
Seems like an emotive piece of text with no real substantiation. Giving upload rights to only a specific set of people is alienating too, but it's pretty practical. So is membership. Kind thoughts, -- Francis Giannaros http://francis.giannaros.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Francis, please read my response to Pascal's email. I think I disagree with you when it comes to the criteria of membership. Francis Giannaros wrote:
[...] The guiding principles are a set of principles that we want people in the community to abide by. In general, they're pretty much common sense. You shouldn't be surprised that a community will ask you to abide by their rules if you want to be in it.
Exactly, they are common sense, so why do I have to sign them? As mentioned in an earlier email thread about code of conduct, I can't see that signing documents etc. changes anything. I've been part of the (at that time) SuSE community since 1996, I don't think I have to sign any document to stay a member of this community. The reason why I am not in favour of your current membership approach is summarized in my reply to Pascal's email.
[...] Seems like an emotive piece of text with no real substantiation. Giving upload rights to only a specific set of people is alienating too, but it's pretty practical. So is membership.
You can't mix technical considerations with more abstract community considerations. That doesn't make sense. Of course a subscription to mailing lists is necessary, or an account with proper permissions to upload files - that's a technical necessity. A community membership isn't, so please don't try to mix those two things. Regards, Thomas --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Feb 9, 2008 12:22 PM, Thomas Hertweck <Thomas.Hertweck@web.de> wrote:
Francis,
please read my response to Pascal's email. I think I disagree with you when it comes to the criteria of membership.
Francis Giannaros wrote:
[...] The guiding principles are a set of principles that we want people in the community to abide by. In general, they're pretty much common sense. You shouldn't be surprised that a community will ask you to abide by their rules if you want to be in it.
Exactly, they are common sense, so why do I have to sign them?
Who said you *had* to sign them? I haven't seen that stated anywhere, and it's obviously not the idea: no-one's going to force you to leave if you don't sign them. Why should you sign them if you're in the openSUSE community is another question. Personally I think people in the community should in order to show their support for the ideals that we try to adhere to.
As mentioned in an earlier email thread about code of conduct, I can't see that signing documents etc. changes anything. I've been part of the (at that time) SuSE community since 1996, I don't think I have to sign any document to stay a member of this community.
You can still be part of the community, or a "member" in a looser sense, but you cannot be an "openSUSE member" in terms of the criteria we have defined. That is because we want to know that you adhere and agree to the principles which the community values and holds, if you are going to be representing the project. It really doesn't seem in the slightest bit unreasonable.
You can't mix technical considerations with more abstract community considerations. That doesn't make sense. Of course a subscription to mailing lists is necessary, or an account with proper permissions to upload files - that's a technical necessity. A community membership isn't, so please don't try to mix those two things.
None of what you have said counters my point, even if my analogy is in a different field (though, really, it isn't anyway). The point here was clear: membership is practical, makes sense, and an easy umbrella to group active openSUSE contributors who we feel should in some way represent the project. The fact that it "alienates" people is no different to the fact that we give some people upload rights to certain things, and we don't to others. Regards, -- Francis Giannaros http://francis.giannaros.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Francis Giannaros wrote:
[...] Who said you *had* to sign them? I haven't seen that stated anywhere,
You said so, and the Wiki says so: if you want to be an openSUSE member, you have to sign the documents.
[...] You can still be part of the community, or a "member" in a looser sense, but you cannot be an "openSUSE member" in terms of the criteria we have defined.
Finally, I think you start to realize the problem. There have always been members of the SuSE community (since the mid '90ies), later on they have become members of the openSUSE community. Now you have changed the meaning of "membership" by introducing artificial new criteria, applications, approvals etc. Many people that I (and obviously others) consider as members of openSUSE do now fall short of your criteria and therefore are no longer considered as members (according to your definition). This, from my point of view, disregards their very valuable contributions, though these contributions might be small in absolute terms! Your own sentence cited above shows how obscure the situation now is: you talk about "loose members" and "openSUSE members". Sorry, but I think the approach you took wasn't such a good idea, and obviously other people also stated that they feel somewhat uncomfortable. You shouldn't have called your approach a "membership". In principle it comes down to two questions: Can you measure contributions in an open community with such a variety of people and skills in absolute terms (see my email to Pascal)? And secondly, should you be allowed to change the definition of "membership" although it has already been used over the last ten years and it has gained a certain meaning? You don't have to agree with me and some others, it's okay to have different opinions, but I expect from you - as a board member - that you (at least) realize the concerns that have been raised, and that you start thinking about it. If you only want to represent that part of the community that agrees with your own opinion, then there's something wrong. You can of course come to the conclusion that the concerns aren't worth dealing with or you can simply ignore the concerns. What they show, however, is that the way the board has communicated their ideas so far isn't ideal and that things are somewhat confusing and unclear (this includes the membership discussion as well as the suddenly adopted code of conduct, the responsibilities of the board, for instance regarding problems on mailing lists, etc). Regards, Th. PS> Please stop sending me private copies of list postings. Everybody has to be subscribed in order to be able to write to the list. I obviously read this list and there's no reason why I would like to receive your emails twice! Use a "reply-to-list" functionality. PPS> That's my last email in this thread. I think everything has been said and there's no need for repetition. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On 10/02/2008, Thomas Hertweck <Thomas.Hertweck@web.de> wrote:
terms! Your own sentence cited above shows how obscure the situation now is: you talk about "loose members" and "openSUSE members". Sorry, but I think the approach you took wasn't such a good idea, and obviously other people also stated that they feel somewhat uncomfortable. You shouldn't have called your approach a "membership". In principle it comes down to two questions: Can you measure contributions in an open community with such a variety of people and skills in absolute terms (see my email to Pascal)? And secondly, should you be allowed to change the definition of "membership" although it has already been used over the last ten years and it has gained a certain meaning?
You keep stating that you are unhappy with the terminology and approach. If you can suggest an improvement to either than please state it. It is difficult to understand your viewpoint when you are only criticising and not suggesting alternatives. If you were the board, what would you do? How would you allocate @opensuse.org addresses, how would you expand the set of people who are seen to comprise and represent the openSUSE project to include non-Novell employees? It has been repeatedly stated by the board that the system can be improved/adjusted as it grows. If your suggestions are good then perhaps they can help. -- Benjamin Weber --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Benji Weber wrote:
[...]
You keep stating that you are unhappy with the terminology and approach. If you can suggest an improvement to either than please state it. It is difficult to understand your viewpoint when you are only criticising and not suggesting alternatives. If you were the board, what would you do?
I know what your are trying to do here, but it doesn't work this way. I would not have introduced such a membership in the first place (in particular if it was only introduced to hand out email addresses), therefore my alternative is clear. However, some people (the board) decided to adopt a code of conduct (although the discussion was diverse), some people decided to implement such a membership, some people decided about the criteria, etc. The community was only informed afterwards. Since everything is now already in place and the criteria etc are applied, you can't change it anymore (you can only adjust it, and even that would be problematic), you can't go back. I am getting somewhat tired of having to repeat the arguments why I think it was not such a good approach just because you don't like what I say and try to disregard me and my opinion. Take it as is - as I said, we don't have to agree. Let's see how the whole thing will work out in the future, some people are obviously very keen on getting an opensuse.org email address. Fair enough. This is definitely the last email from me in this thread. If you want to respond, send a PM. I think many subscribers aren't really interested in this discussion. Regards, Th. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 15:19 +0000, Thomas Hertweck wrote:
Benji Weber wrote:
[...]
You keep stating that you are unhappy with the terminology and approach. If you can suggest an improvement to either than please state it. It is difficult to understand your viewpoint when you are only criticising and not suggesting alternatives. If you were the board, what would you do?
I know what your are trying to do here, but it doesn't work this way. I would not have introduced such a membership in the first place (in particular if it was only introduced to hand out email addresses), therefore my alternative is clear. However, some people (the board) decided to adopt a code of conduct (although the discussion was diverse), some people decided to implement such a membership, some people decided about the criteria, etc. The community was only informed afterwards. Since everything is now already in place and the criteria etc are applied, you can't change it anymore (you can only adjust it, and even that would be problematic), you can't go back.
I don't see it the same way as you do. I think the Board has been very open in hearing your discussion and may eventually adjust or even rescind, based on feedback here on this mailing list. I do not get the impression that the Board is ruling with some iron fist and that their "edicts" are now written in stone that can't be changed back. This membership has only been in effect for less then a week, hardly stuck in a non-forward/reverse mode. What is wrong with the Board finding ways to try to give recognition to people who contribute to openSUSE in various ways? They even state that the bar isn't very high on qualifying for membership. This discussion is, in my opinion, getting a little out of hand, because some people are making it out to be more than what it is. It isn't a membership of exclusivity, but simply a membership of recognition. If you seek clarification, then like Benjamin stated, propose some wording to make it clearer, and easier for people to become members.
I am getting somewhat tired of having to repeat the arguments why I think it was not such a good approach just because you don't like what I say and try to disregard me and my opinion.
I don't see how Benjamin's response to you was meant to imply disregard for you and your opinion. On the contrary, he was asking for clarification. If you don't think your arguments of the past have been heard, then re-write your arguments to get the point across better. I happen to agree with Benjamin that your arguments have been somewhat vague and I don't fully understand what it is you are trying to point out either.
Take it as is - as I said, we don't have to agree. Let's see how the whole thing will work out in the future, some people are obviously very keen on getting an opensuse.org email address. Fair enough. This is definitely the last email from me in this thread. If you want to respond, send a PM. I think many subscribers aren't really interested in this discussion.
You complain earlier about the Board making decisions by assumption. Yet, aren't you just as guilty in assuming that "many subscribers aren't really interested in this discussion."? You're making a decision for me that apparently I'm not interested in this discussion. While I haven't spoken up much on this thread, it doesn't mean I'm not interested. I think it is perfectly relevant and topical to -project mailing list. There have been many different people participating on this thread and it is clear from the responses of Board Members that they are just as equally interested in hearing this discussion as well and making changes where necessary to better support the openSUSE community. There's also the chronic problem in any political situation. Supporters tend to be less vocal than dissenters. Assuming that is the case here, I would venture to guess many here have supported the Board's actions of late. And quite honestly, I would be somewhat embarrassed by any outsiders looking in on our discussion here and seeing that we have people who object to what amounts to a virtual pat on the back by the Board of openSUSE's contributors. And that's really what all this boils down to. The Board wants to show appreciation. And I, frankly, appreciate the Board's appreciation.
Regards, Th.
Also regards, Bryen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Sunday 10 February 2008 09:48:46 am Bryen wrote:
There's also the chronic problem in any political situation. Supporters tend to be less vocal than dissenters. Assuming that is the case here, I would venture to guess many here have supported the Board's actions of late. And quite honestly, I would be somewhat embarrassed by any outsiders looking in on our discussion here and seeing that we have people who object to what amounts to a virtual pat on the back by the Board of openSUSE's contributors. And that's really what all this boils down to. The Board wants to show appreciation. And I, frankly, appreciate the Board's appreciation.
Me too. I don't see this as much more than sign of formal recognition to people that are active helping openSUSE community. Though, maybe naming should be adjusted to reflect that is just the same as 'honor roll' in US schools. It gives no additional rights, it doesn't make you school representative in official sense, it is just plain "we (the openSUSE community) like what you are doing and this is our way to say thank you". I really can't see much reason to object and to refuse email address. It will not change real status for a bit, but it will be, just as honor roll is schools, motivational factor and to the extent responsibility, to keep that way. People with long tradition with SuSE, SUSE, openSUSE don't need this kind of motivation and recognition. They were motivated in different way for all those years they contributed to SUSE and they will probably (hopefully) not change now. The SUSE at the time they started was different, there was no formal community, and recognition was, just as the community itself, informal peer recognition. You could go in and out at any time without any adverse effect to your reputation or status. Though, times are different, first, there is formal community and todays kids want some recognition like 'honor roll' that almost everybody can achieve with work (no need for special qualification, talents and persistence), but they want it now, not in 10 years. To bring them in any online community has to offer some not so hard to achieve recognition, and more than that, has to develop different levels of recognition, recognition for different activities (IRC, mail list help, wiki, popularization, etc), etc. It means also that there is need to encourage people to start maintaining project, not as it is now to disappear without any consequence. I would like that everybody look in http://en.opensuse.org/Code_of_Conduct#Bibliography it may bring us to some common ground. I had time to read http://shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html and it seems, by the symptoms, that we are entering phase where more formal stuff has to be introduced to keep people working in interest of community, not to brake it down. To feel responsible for actions. If there are other, or better, articles about online communities, specially those around opensource development I would like to read them too. BTW, as I check recent changes on openSUSE wiki daily, I can see increase in number of people that create personal pages, ie. don't want to be anonymous. I guess that this trend has something to do with recent actions. -- Regards, Rajko. See http://en.opensuse.org/Portal --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 12:59:38PM -0600, Rajko M. wrote: [...]
It gives no additional rights, it doesn't make you school representative in official sense, it is just plain "we (the openSUSE community) like what you are doing and this is our way to say thank you".
It does: it's been clearly stated that membership as defined means that you "speak for the project". That's one of the concerns that I was trying to raise: what happens when someone who "speaks for the project" gets out of line? This has the potential for causing a lot of trouble, and I would urge the Board to think carefully now about how they will deal with it when it happens. [...] -- ======================== Roger Whittaker roger@disruptive.org.uk http://disruptive.org.uk ======================== --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Roger Whittaker a écrit :
This has the potential for causing a lot of trouble, and I would urge the Board to think carefully now about how they will deal with it when it happens.
his discussion is very usefull. I think it's an evidence of the good health of the openSUSE project. effectively it shows there are two different (even 3) kind of members we have to distinguish in a manner or an other. * the board members. Obviously they need to have time, general recognition and wisdom, when they speak they must (should?) be listened. * the "general" members. They work for openSUSE for years, with little or no recognition, other than eventual bitorrent prioritary access or demo dvd and tshirts on the mail (thank you :-). As I see the facts, these are the "members" that will be honored with e-mail and IRC cloak. and this is good. But I don't think these members should "speak for the project". Of course, as oldtimers, they advice may have some more weigth, but that's all. * moderators. Preferably not board members (board members should have more important job to do), they need some authority. May be also project leaders or wiki sysadmins that own some more permissions on the wiki/servers than john doe. These are not to be numerous, but could have some recognition in the e-mail? jdd -- http://www.dodin.net --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
* the "general" members. They work for openSUSE for years, with little or no recognition, other than eventual bitorrent prioritary access or demo dvd and tshirts on the mail
Hmmm my old SuSE T-Shirt needs replacing :-) This is an interesting discussion. I see the same from time to time with various projects over on OpenOffice.org - for example with the recent launching of the new forum. There was a real struggle with a similar set of issues... who is a "volunteer" (member)? How are they selected? etc. In the end there is essentially a board who grant people access just as there is shaping up here. The people granted access are expected to behave like adults, and so far everyone is :-) I think the same will be true here. openSUSE is really growing up. It's rather nice to see things like the email address and IRC mask being offered to people here. C. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
jdd <jdd@dodin.org> writes:
[...] But I don't think these members should "speak for the project". Of course, as oldtimers, they advice may have some more weigth, but that's all.
If you use an opensuse.org address, you somehow say I'm part of the community. So, while "speaking for the project" might be a bit too much, there's still some truths in the term. Do you have a better wording? Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, Director Platform / openSUSE, aj@suse.de SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
Andreas Jaeger a écrit :
jdd <jdd@dodin.org> writes:
[...] But I don't think these members should "speak for the project". Of course, as oldtimers, they advice may have some more weigth, but that's all.
If you use an opensuse.org address, you somehow say I'm part of the community. So, while "speaking for the project" might be a bit too much, there's still some truths in the term. Do you have a better wording?
my son have the same name I have and don't spaeak for me. It's enought stopping saying "@opensuse.org speak for the project". It's only this affirmation by the board that give the power. I think board members and moderators should have an e-mail like @board.opensuse.org (not everybody knows who is members of the board) and moderator.opensuse.org, so anybody know than when some of these folks write on a list *with this address* it's something that must be seen and followed. in summary, using an @opensuse.org mailing adresse should only mean "I'm proud to be a member" and autority intervention should bee seen by an other mean. after all, the board members are allowed to discuss on they own beleif, not necessary for the project :-)) as of voting, the only really meaningfull subscribing system is the one used time ago by ICANN at large, anybody can vote if it asks for and return a signed *paper letter* sent to him. But it's very expensive and long. jdd -- http://www.dodin.net --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008, jdd wrote:
effectively it shows there are two different (even 3) kind of members we have to distinguish in a manner or an other.
* the board members. Obviously they need to have time, general recognition and wisdom, when they speak they must (should?) be listened.
There is a bit of a slippery slope here: not everything a board member or one of us Novell employees says is an official statement. In fact while I would claim that board members, colleagues of mine, or those who happen to be both like AJ or Coolo, generally are careful about what they say and write, the vast majority of such statements is *not* official in any way, form or shape. Do not take the analogy too seriously, but the situation is a bit like the pope predicting the weather when chatting with his gardener versus him teaching ex cathedra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathedra#Ex_cathedra). Gerald -- Dr. Gerald Pfeifer E gp@novell.com SUSE Linux Products GmbH Director Inbound Product Mgmt T +49(911)74053-0 HRB 16746 (AG Nuremberg) openSUSE/SUSE Linux Enterprise F +49(911)74053-483 GF: Markus Rex --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Gerald Pfeifer a écrit :
There is a bit of a slippery slope here: not everything a board member or one of us Novell employees says is an official statement.
this is exacltly my point, it should be better if these people could have an "official" e-mail, for the moment they speak for the board. for example, he membership anoucement seems to be official, the other Giannaro's mails probably not jdd -- http://www.dodin.net --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
* jdd <jdd@dodin.org> [2008-02-13 08:20]:
Gerald Pfeifer a écrit :
There is a bit of a slippery slope here: not everything a board member or one of us Novell employees says is an official statement.
this is exacltly my point, it should be better if these people could have an "official" e-mail, for the moment they speak for the board.
Why do you need a new mail address for everything? Do you also have another name in real life if you speak officially? It should be clear from the *contents* of the mail whether this is official or unofficial, not from the mail address. Bernhard --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Bernhard Walle wrote:
Why do you need a new mail address for everything? Do you also have another name in real life if you speak officially?
it's not me. I don't have neither a real need for an opensuse.org e-mail
It should be clear from the *contents* of the mail whether this is official or unofficial, not from the mail address.
well it's often not, and I *have* an e-mail and a signature for some of my (other than opensuse) official interventions jdd -- http://www.dodin.net --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Wednesday 13 February 2008 21:29:29 Bernhard Walle wrote:
* jdd <jdd@dodin.org> [2008-02-13 08:20]:
Gerald Pfeifer a écrit :
There is a bit of a slippery slope here: not everything a board member or one of us Novell employees says is an official statement.
this is exacltly my point, it should be better if these people could have an "official" e-mail, for the moment they speak for the board.
Why do you need a new mail address for everything? Do you also have another name in real life if you speak officially?
No, but in offline life you have Body Language and "Game Face" to communicate that.
It should be clear from the *contents* of the mail whether this is official or unofficial, not from the mail address.
"Official" email addys have an advantage from both ends. Receiver knows that mail from this addy is kosher but also sender reflects on the content a bit more because this is "Business Face"
Bernhard
cheers GL -- Graham Lauder, OpenOffice.org MarCon (Marketing Contact) NZ http://marketing.openoffice.org/contacts.html INGOTs Moderator New Zealand www.theingots.org.nz GET DRESSED : GET OOOGEAR Gear for the well dressed OOo Advocate www.ooogear.co.nz --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Graham >>> On 2/13/2008 at 21:37, Graham Lauder <yorick_@openoffice.org> wrote: > On Wednesday 13 February 2008 21:29:29 Bernhard Walle wrote: >> * jdd <jdd@dodin.org> [2008-02-13 08:20]: >> > Gerald Pfeifer a écrit : >> >> There is a bit of a slippery slope here: not everything a board member >> >> or one of us Novell employees says is an official statement. >> > >> > this is exacltly my point, it should be better if these people could have >> > an "official" e-mail, for the moment they speak for the board. >> >> Why do you need a new mail address for everything? Do you also have >> another name in real life if you speak officially? > > > No, but in offline life you have Body Language and "Game Face" to > communicate > that. > In case your statement now is true, I have to assume that what you wrote actually represents the opinion of the OpenOffice.org project, as you wrote it with an @openoffice.org email address? I hope you just realize how bad such a coupling of email addresses to a statement really is. In now way would I dare to tell that what you just wrote to any random mailing list is the opinion of a independent other project. Dominique --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Søndag den 10. Februar 2008 20:14:30 skrev Roger Whittaker:
it's been clearly stated that membership as defined means that you "speak for the project". That's one of the concerns that I was trying to raise: what happens when someone who "speaks for the project" gets out of line?
There's speaking for the project and then there's speaking for the project. People will of course understand that there's a different level of "officialness" when some random member/employee speaks, and when Coolo, AJ or Michl or a board member speaks. What is meant is simply that some (many actually) people will be allowed to speak with the added weight of using an official opensuse-address as a "platform". I don't think we need any special measures to discipline people. Incidents will occur, but they'll be rare, and the public will have the good sense to understand that it's just one person losing his head, and it won't reflect on the whole project. However I do think that it might be a good idea to consider some form of idle timeout, so that membership+perks are revoked after a certain period of inactivity. Maybe reviewing member list every 24 months or something. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Sunday 10 February 2008 01:14:30 pm Roger Whittaker wrote:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 12:59:38PM -0600, Rajko M. wrote:
[...]
It gives no additional rights, it doesn't make you school representative in official sense, it is just plain "we (the openSUSE community) like what you are doing and this is our way to say thank you".
It does: it's been clearly stated that membership as defined means that you "speak for the project". That's one of the concerns that I was trying to raise: what happens when someone who "speaks for the project" gets out of line?
This has the potential for causing a lot of trouble, and I would urge the Board to think carefully now about how they will deal with it when it happens.
[...]
Roger, I'm with openSUSE quite a while and follow quite tight many areas and, while I'm not mind reader, it seems that I understand Board members better, most of the time :-) Membership is given, it is privilege, not a right, and can be revoked by the same people that approved it. The technical details, or bylaws, will come when need arise, but right now the Board has enough capacity to deal with. Having email address with opensuse.org domain means some recognition, but it brings responsibility, as you share identifier with group of people. Whatever you do affects everybody with the same identifier to some extent. I think that fact alone will prevent many of us from overreacting, risking to go out of the line. Those that can't control themselves risk to have their feelings seriously injured. -- Regards, Rajko. See http://en.opensuse.org/Portal --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Roger Whittaker wrote:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 12:59:38PM -0600, Rajko M. wrote: [...]
It gives no additional rights, it doesn't make you school representative in official sense, it is just plain "we (the openSUSE community) like what you are doing and this is our way to say thank you".
It does: it's been clearly stated that membership as defined means that you "speak for the project". That's one of the concerns that I
It's not needed to "clearly state" that people with @opensuse.org *somewhat* (other emails on this thread clarify what I meant, actually, especially Gerald's) speak for the project. It's implied. I mentioned that, and it wasn't an """official statement""" nor anything of the likes. It's just that when, say, you send an email to someone @debian.org using an @opensuse.org address, it automatically holds a bit more in terms of openSUSE.org representation than sending from, say, gmail or whatever else. I mean, that's obvious. That being said, and as Gerald pointed out, no single person is able to speak for the whole community -- I hope that's clear to everyone as well. It also depends a lot on the context, the topic, etc. I'm not going to go into more details unless really needed, this is just really common sense and how it works implicitly. Explaining it in detail does appear a bit ridiculous to me -- but if needed, I'll happily explain what my understanding is, and how I meant that (then my assumption would be wrong, which is quite possible ;)).
was trying to raise: what happens when someone who "speaks for the project" gets out of line?
We (board) haven't discussed that up to now, nor has it been discussed over here. Personally, I don't see much of an issue here. First of all, it depends on how exactly that person would be "getting out of line". Being rude once doesn't mean being kicked immediately. One can always politely point to the Guiding Principles if it happens a bit too frequently. Taking measures is needed as a last resort, when such a person really gets rude beyond what's excusable (e.g. racism, repeatedly insulting, spamming, trolling, ...). Now when that happens (and I certainly hope it won't), the first barrier is still and foremost the moderators of the respective communication channels (mailing-list mods, IRC ops, forum mods, ...). If the person still doesn't behave in a socially acceptable way or repeatedly infringes the Guiding Principles he signed and hence agreed to follow (which is a precondition for "membership"), then I guess that the board could or should be contacted. It doesn't have to be the board btw, we could also have a small committee of people that would take care of it -- but then again, I really don't think it will happen often, and the board will have enough time and resources to take care of such things happening very occasionally. Now, what measures? Revoking the "membership" (and hence the @opensuse.org alias) is the obvious action to take in such a situation. The respective moderators (as outlined above) will already have taken measures to protect the communication channel they're in charge of (i.e. ban from IRC, unsubscribe+ban from mailing-list, block/remove account on web forums). Those are pretty obvious to me (and hopefully to everyone else), whilst indeed, they're 1) not discussed on this list 2) not discussed by the board 3) not written down anywhere at this point.
This has the potential for causing a lot of trouble, and I would urge the Board to think carefully now about how they will deal with it when it happens.
While I understand and share your concerns, I don't think it has "potential for causing a lot of trouble". But if you have precise ideas and suggestions on how to handle that, please let us know :) cheers - -- -o) Pascal Bleser <pascal.bleser@opensuse.org> /\\ http://opensuse.org -- I took the green pill _\_v FOSDEM::23+24 Feb 2008, Brussels, http://fosdem.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHtN34r3NMWliFcXcRAk/CAKCMvRdQ9rlwLNBmJtj07kBOL+/FRwCbBjlX C4MaNrp81sk+31FYA6lDsVo= =Rcws -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Feb 10, 2008 1:02 PM, Thomas Hertweck <Thomas.Hertweck@web.de> wrote:
Francis Giannaros wrote:
[...] Who said you *had* to sign them? I haven't seen that stated anywhere,
You said so, and the Wiki says so: if you want to be an openSUSE member, you have to sign the documents.
[...] You can still be part of the community, or a "member" in a looser sense, but you cannot be an "openSUSE member" in terms of the criteria we have defined.
Finally, I think you start to realize the problem. There have always been members of the SuSE community (since the mid '90ies), later on they have become members of the openSUSE community. Now you have changed the meaning of "membership" by introducing artificial new criteria, applications, approvals etc.
One curious thing here: you acknowledge that the meaning of the word (as we mean it) is different to your meaning of "member", and yet you go on to still suggest that others are members in the respect *you* suggest. There would be some very big confusion if "openSUSE member" was a widely used term in some particular way before it was more clearly defined by us. Fortunately, however, it was not. Secondly, the word is very applicable in this scenario.
Many people that I (and obviously others) consider as members of openSUSE do now fall short of your criteria and therefore are no longer considered as members (according to your definition). This, from my point of view, disregards their very valuable contributions, though these contributions might be small in absolute terms! Your own sentence cited above shows how obscure the situation now is: you talk about "loose members" and "openSUSE members".
How else would you prefer me to differentiate between the way you use the term and they way in which we've defined it? That there is a confusion here is obvious (confusion is what you get when two people use a word differently :-).
You shouldn't have called your approach a "membership".
And yet you have provided no substantiation for this other than that "you consider people as members who are not"; when we disagree (as we have defined the criteria very clearly), what exactly do you expect?
In principle it comes down to two questions: Can you measure contributions in an open community with such a variety of people and skills in absolute terms (see my email to Pascal)?
What absolute terms? We do not need to proffer some type of explicit metric in order to compare contributions to. As Pascal said, this is not a mathematical formula for you to plug in and get out an explicit result. It's been patently clear that the decision (at least currently), is up to the board. It is also clear that there is reasoning involved, examples of contributions that are valid; no crazy magic involved in the process.
And secondly, should you be allowed to change the definition of "membership" although it has already been used over the last ten years and it has gained a certain meaning?
It is untrue that the term has been widely used in the openSUSE community in the way that you suggest. If anything, that is something I know, or do you think I'm not involved at all? :)
You don't have to agree with me and some others, it's okay to have different opinions, but I expect from you - as a board member - that you (at least) realize the concerns that have been raised, and that you start thinking about it.
I have said from the beginning that I'm open to any suggestions for change.
If you only want to represent that part of the community that agrees with your own opinion, then there's something wrong.
When a project goes from being closed source into opening up as a community project there are going to be a *lot* of changes around the place. Turning a closed project into an open one is an awful lot harder than just creating a new open community and project. With change there are always people that will disagree. The vital point will always be to listen to the concerns with an open-mind, but also to not let invalid or unpractical concerns drag the project behind. Needless to say, so far I'm incredibly pleased with the membership effort (this of course includes the community response to it). We've had countless membership requests (95% or so which will probably be accepted if they haven't been already), and many people feeling very positive about it. Though the process is of course not perfect and I hope it can be improved as time goes on.
PS> Please stop sending me private copies of list postings. Everybody has to be subscribed in order to be able to write to the list. I obviously read this list and there's no reason why I would like to receive your emails twice! Use a "reply-to-list" functionality.
It was gmail wackiness.
PPS> That's my last email in this thread. I think everything has been said and there's no need for repetition.
Just read your latest email (the one after this one), but I've covered most of your points in this email anyway. Kind thoughts, -- Francis Giannaros http://francis.giannaros.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On 08/02/2008, Roger Whittaker <roger@disruptive.org.uk> wrote:
It's clear that a project like openSUSE (or Fedora, or Debian) needs some formal (and ultimately legal) system of governance, and a Board is welcome and necessary as a way of providing that, so long as its workings are transparent and open.
But I'm slightly uneasy about the whole membership concept.
This begets the question - do you see any way other than a membership system to have an elected board in the future? This is a stated aim of the current board. Clearly an election where anyone can vote would not work, as people from other distributions or even corporations such as Microsoft could alter the outcome. The current board was selected by Novell, as I see it the only way to move towards an elected board is to have a membership system in place. There are more reasons than just representing the project that require a somewhat exclusive group. There is already an exclusive group which has been representing the project, choosing the board, and making decisions up until this point. This group has been a subset of Novell employees. The membership process opens this up to non-Novell employees and makes the process transparent. Now anyone can apply, and anyone can see who is already a member. Therefore it seems to me that the membership system only reduces exclusivity, rather than increasing it. Could it be improved further, certainly. However, most of the concerns seem to be implementation details, and the system can be evolved to meet the changing requirements of an expanding community. I would certainly be personally interested in hearing if you have any suggestions on how the practical requirements of the community such as elections and representation can be addressed without a membership system. -- Benjamin Weber --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Saturday 09 February 2008 02:07:41 Benji Weber wrote:
This begets the question - do you see any way other than a membership system to have an elected board in the future? This is a stated aim of the current board.
It's new to me that the membership which was announced is also meant to form the body who elects the board. This obviously would be a situation which is less than optimal. As the condition for becoming a member is the approval of the board, the board would effectively assemble the people for its own election. This would look like a bug in the rules to me. I'm not implying any bad intentions, just pointing out that it's not a good way to do these things in general, regardless of who is in charge. -- Cornelius Schumacher <cschum@suse.de> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On 09/02/2008, Cornelius Schumacher <cschum@suse.de> wrote:
It's new to me that the membership which was announced is also meant to form the body who elects the board.
Sorry if I wasn't clear. This is not a stated aim of the membership system. I was just trying to illustrate that there are uses for a membership system. Future elections is just one example.
This obviously would be a situation which is less than optimal. As the condition for becoming a member is the approval of the board, the board would effectively assemble the people for its own election. This would look like a bug in the rules to me. I'm not implying any bad intentions, just pointing out that it's not a good way to do these things in general, regardless of who is in charge.
This seems to be a problem inherent to any hierarchical organisation. Either you allow anyone to vote and elections skewed by malicious parties, or you control who can and are in danger of influencing the election. Most democracies have restrictions on who can vote. e.g. citizens of a country, not those in prison, etc. Even if the membership is selected by the board they can not control outcome of a vote if the ballot is secret. Membership process could always be altered in the future to allow nominations from other members as in other projects. -- Benjamin Weber --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Cornelius Schumacher <cschum@suse.de> writes:
On Saturday 09 February 2008 02:07:41 Benji Weber wrote:
This begets the question - do you see any way other than a membership system to have an elected board in the future? This is a stated aim of the current board.
It's new to me that the membership which was announced is also meant to form the body who elects the board.
This obviously would be a situation which is less than optimal. As the condition for becoming a member is the approval of the board, the board would effectively assemble the people for its own election. This would look like a bug in the rules to me. I'm not implying any bad intentions, just pointing out that it's not a good way to do these things in general, regardless of who is in charge.
Yes, that could happen - but what alternatives do you see? Once we have elections, we need to restrict the voter list somehow IMO. I see the following options right now: * Having an users.opensuse.org account and signed the guiding principles * membership Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, Director Platform / openSUSE, aj@suse.de SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
On Monday 11 February 2008, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
Yes, that could happen - but what alternatives do you see? Once we have elections, we need to restrict the voter list somehow IMO.
I see the following options right now: * Having an users.opensuse.org account and signed the guiding principles
I think this would be the preferable option. It's open and gives the board a very broad legitimation. As we probably will have some constraints to ensure that Novell retains a certain amount of control, I also don't think this will lead to problems with something like a "hostile takeover". An alternative would be to form something like a election committee which is independent of the board and handles registration of voters based on some defined criteria. This would be less open and more complex, but it would probably solve most problems. -- Cornelius Schumacher <cschum@suse.de> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Cornelius Schumacher <cschum@suse.de> writes:
On Monday 11 February 2008, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
Yes, that could happen - but what alternatives do you see? Once we have elections, we need to restrict the voter list somehow IMO.
I see the following options right now: * Having an users.opensuse.org account and signed the guiding principles
I think this would be the preferable option. It's open and gives the board a very broad legitimation. As we probably will have some constraints to ensure that Novell retains a certain amount of control, I also don't think this will lead to problems with something like a "hostile takeover".
An alternative would be to form something like a election committee which is independent of the board and handles registration of voters based on some defined criteria. This would be less open and more complex, but it would probably solve most problems.
I'll keep that in mind for when we discuss the voting process, Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, Director Platform / openSUSE, aj@suse.de SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
I hope everyone will forgive me if I reply to my own original mail and summarise rather than quote certain things that have been said already. My motives for starting this thread in the first place were to try to open up a higher-level discussion about the nature and consequences of a membership system. My original points were that "positional power" doesn't sit well with the open source ethos, and that any wall or boundary separates those inside it from those outside it. It may tend towards creating defensiveness from those on the inside and aggression among those on the outside. It can also create doubt among those on the outside based on lack of confidence ("am I good enough to join?"). These are entirely general and, I think inevitable features of any such system, but I think we've already seen them displayed to a small extent in the discussion so far. Benji makes the point that if there is to be a Board, there needs to be a body that elects that Board, and the membership is the obvious body to do this. It's not been made clear exactly how this will work, but Cornelius objects that there is an obvious problem with any system where a Board is elected by people who have been selected by it. I think he's right, and I think this is an insuperable problem with the system as currently proposed / operating. There are alternatives. 1) Membership open to anyone interested enough to want to be a member. This is common in voluntary organisations, but the obvious objection is that there can be "entryism": a group of people with a particular political agenda all join at the same time to try to change the aims and direction of the organisation. 2) Membership open to anyone interested enough, but with a hurdle of some kind to try to prevent the abuses mentioned in (1). For example a wait of a period of time before membership is granted, a nominal payment for membership, or (and I think this one is promising in this case) a wait together with the possibility of a veto for given reasons (either by members of the Board or a defined number of other members). It has been mentioned that having an email address associated with the project implies that members will be speaking on behalf of the project, which of course it does. That means that if they say things that are deemed to be contrary to the guiding principles or code of conduct, they will have to be disciplined, and, in extreme cases, have their membership revoked. Hence there will have to be a process for doing this. I think there are good reasons for concern about the fallout from any such process, and how this should be handled needs to be thought through now, rather than when it is too late and damage has been done. -- ======================== Roger Whittaker roger@disruptive.org.uk http://disruptive.org.uk ======================== --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Roger Whittaker wrote: [...]
My original points were that "positional power" doesn't sit well with the open source ethos, and that any wall or boundary separates those
Correct. Open Source communities function by merit, not by position. We definitely don't want a political structure with a strong agenda that isn't driven by merit. At some point, which is equally applicable to similar structures, there has to be a certain degree of trust towards the board members. Indeed, we haven't been elected, we're a bootstrap board, but I think that the people currently on the board qualify quite well in terms of merit and experience. I do know at least a few OSS projects that are seriously infected with politics, which is very damaging and annoying for the people who contribute to it -- no, I won't give names ;). We don't want that, not by any means.
inside it from those outside it. It may tend towards creating defensiveness from those on the inside and aggression among those on the outside. It can also create doubt among those on the outside based on lack of confidence ("am I good enough to join?"). These are entirely general and, I think inevitable features of any such system, but I think we've already seen them displayed to a small extent in the discussion so far.
Right. As stated, we definitely don't want to create an isolation layer, but to some degree, it can and will be perceived as such. I really think the key issue here is the word "member". As Francis wrote already, and we're very aware of that as we discussed it a lot on board meetings, the term is far from being perfect but it's the best we've come up with at this point. The "member" status isn't exactly being "a member of the community". Everyone who takes part into the community by some way or another is obviously instantly a member of that community, which does not require some sort of approval or explicit status. Hence, not being a "member" doesn't mean not being a member. While this sounds ridiculous, it certainly shows that we should work on the term. The more I think about it, and the more feedback I read, the more I think it's inadequate. Other projects use terms such as "ambassador" or "fellow". If anyone has suggestions, I'd love to hear about it :) We really want it to be an inclusive process rather than an exclusion process. It's not about stressing who doesn't have the status, it's about giving visibility and recognition to active contributors. Actually, "active contributor" sounds a lot better to me in terms of capturing the essence and meaning (I just noticed it's the term I'm using all the time to describe it), but it isn't perfect either, because you can be an active contributor and not have it ack'ed by the process and the explicit status.
Benji makes the point that if there is to be a Board, there needs to be a body that elects that Board, and the membership is the obvious body to do this. It's not been made clear exactly how this will work, but Cornelius objects that there is an obvious problem with any system where a Board is elected by people who have been selected by it. I think he's right, and I think this is an insuperable problem with the system as currently proposed / operating.
Again, note that the board never said that the "membership" is the system to be used for elections. Benjamin wrote that twice at least ;) It's just an example to illustrate that the membership could indeed be used for other things. But there are no plans regarding that at the moment. Right now it's only about giving @o.o and cloaks.
There are alternatives. 1) Membership open to anyone interested enough to want to be a member. This is common in voluntary organisations, but the obvious objection is that there can be "entryism": a group of people with a particular political agenda all join at the same time to try to change the aims and direction of the organisation.
I'm less concerned by that than by the fact that if anyone can get the status, then it doesn't represent anything. If I may stress two aspects once more: 1) meritocracy, and gratification for active contributors 2) speak on behalf of the project and remove the line between Novell employees and the others If an application is sufficient to receive the status, then 1 is voided instantly. And 2 is open to anyone without conditions. Signing the Guiding Principles must be obligatory, to the very least.
2) Membership open to anyone interested enough, but with a hurdle of some kind to try to prevent the abuses mentioned in (1). For example a wait of a period of time before membership is granted, a nominal payment for membership, or (and I think this one is promising in this case) a wait together with the possibility of a veto for given reasons (either by members of the Board or a defined number of other members).
The current hurdles are signing the GP and merit. Merit is IMHO the best criterion, but it is also the most difficult to apply as a metric (and even then, metrics don't always accurately represent a person's contributions, as not everything is captured). Another approach we've been thinking of is using a mentor-alike system, where application and grant of membership is done through votes from existing members. While that approach would (or rather will, we think that we'll need such a system at some point anyway) be more "democratic" because it isn't the board that decides, it has a problem: it requires a bootstrapping process to have an initial set of members that can vouch for candidates. This is pretty much what we're doing now. Also, I insisted in starting to grant membership right now with a less "democratic" system that certainly is imperfect (the board decides) because I didn't want to have discussions for 3 months to have a possibly perfect system (that doesn't exist, but should be aimed for) before we could start actually doing something. Remember, the initial problem that has caused the whole initiative was that only Novell employees had an @opensuse.org address, and that's something very important and urgent to fix -- at least in my opinion. My goal was to just get things done, see how it works, listen to the feedback and ideas for improving it, and then adapt the process as it goes along. It isn't carved into stone, and feedback is obviously what's happening right now (and that's great :)).
It has been mentioned that having an email address associated with the project implies that members will be speaking on behalf of the project, which of course it does. That means that if they say things that are deemed to be contrary to the guiding principles or code of conduct, they will have to be disciplined, and, in extreme cases, have their membership revoked.
Absolutely. While this hasn't been stated explicitly, I hope everyone will have understood that by the whole discussion around the Guiding Principles and the fact that they must sign them. Signing them obviously means adhering to them. And not adhering to them obviously means revocation. Arguably, we should explicitly write that down somewhere, indeed.
Hence there will have to be a process for doing this.
True. We haven't thought of a process yet at this point, but reporting to the board is an obvious mechanism that doesn't require an explicit process. I would certainly want to have an autonomous process that isn't bottlenecked by the board, for two reasons: - - the board might not have enough human resources to process all the requests and complaints (though hopefully, the amount of complaints will remain low) - - we don't want to be the "power that decides"; instead, our mission is to support and help where possible [1], and act as a last resort to resolve conflicts [1] as stated on the board wiki page: "The board should provide guidance and support existing governance structures, but shouldn't direct or control development, since community mechanisms exist to accomplish the goals of the project." This obviously means switching to another process when it's worked out, such as a mentorship system for proposing and granting membership status, as well as possibly the same or similar system for revoking it. But as said, we haven't been able to put much thought in it yet. And we're definitely open for discussion and ideas :)
I think there are good reasons for concern about the fallout from any such process, and how this should be handled needs to be thought through now, rather than when it is too late and damage has been done.
True, but I'm afraid that at this point, you're going to have to put some trust into the board doing things properly ;) We're never going to have a perfect system because a full-fledged democracy is a huge apparel that would suffocate everything, and then, democracies have their own issues (everyone can just look at how his or democratic countries are being run). Hence, I think that indeed we should work towards more open and autonomous processes (e.g. electing the board, have as few as possible things having to go through the board, use mentorship systems instead of board decision, etc...) but to some degree, there has to be trust into the individuals who are on the board. Electing the board should enhance that, but until then, we're just human, we're contributors and developers who have been in the field for quite some time and I think that we certainly qualify in terms of merit. This doesn't mean that everything we do is correct by definition, nor that it may not be criticized, but be seen in the light of good intentions and doing our best to serve the community are things I do think we deserve. cheers - -- -o) Pascal Bleser <pascal.bleser@opensuse.org> /\\ http://opensuse.org -- I took the green pill _\_v FOSDEM::23+24 Feb 2008, Brussels, http://fosdem.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHrYeAr3NMWliFcXcRAi10AKCedUHIHnH0lPkknn5dRBMzt+8lkwCdHZV3 vzx1ql1BlZYnn5BvFN8H8P4= =Ze1k -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 11:59:13AM +0100, Pascal Bleser wrote:
Roger Whittaker wrote:
[...] Thanks for a very complete and thoughtful reply. A couple of points I'd like to make: [...]
Again, note that the board never said that the "membership" is the system to be used for elections. Benjamin wrote that twice at least ;)
The web page says: "One of the missions of the board is to define a process to elect the next board." It's a difficult problem to solve, and if the "members" are not the electorate, who is? On the other hand if the electorate does consist of the members, the serious criticism previously noted stands.
I think there are good reasons for concern about the fallout from any such process, and how this should be handled needs to be thought through now, rather than when it is too late and damage has been done.
True, but I'm afraid that at this point, you're going to have to put some trust into the board doing things properly ;)
I'm absolutely not expressing a lack of trust in the Board by raising this question. That's exactly why I started a new thread with the intention of making this a more "philosophical" meta-discussion of the problems of organisations in general rather than the details of this one. But I was pointing out that like all organisations and human institutions, openSUSE will have to face the problem of what to do when its members speak or behave in incorrect ways. And when it happens (it's a "when, not an "if") there is danger of a lot of unpleasant fallout and publicity for the project as a whole. [...] -- ======================== Roger Whittaker roger@disruptive.org.uk http://disruptive.org.uk ======================== --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Saturday 09 February 2008 06:17:25 am Roger Whittaker wrote:
But I was pointing out that like all organisations and human institutions, openSUSE will have to face the problem of what to do when its members speak or behave in incorrect ways. And when it happens (it's a "when, not an "if") there is danger of a lot of unpleasant fallout and publicity for the project as a whole.
Hi Roger, this is a valid point. Having opensuse.org in email can give notion of official in mind of people that did not follow this discussion, and don't look in http://en.opensuse.org/Members . There is a problem as 'openSUSE member' is not self defined, as noted in another posts. Member of openSUSE community in what capacity: - openSUSE community; everybody using openSUSE is that kind of member - honor roll member; like honor roll students in US - core member; this sounds official - <something else>? -- Regards, Rajko. See http://en.opensuse.org/Portal --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Saturday 09 February 2008, Pascal Bleser wrote:
( ... lots of good stuff ... )
Thanks Pascal for this insightful post. I think it summarizes the discussion pretty well and points out the key issues. We are bootstrapping a new organization here. This is exciting, but it also comes with some special difficulties. We have to get over this as a community and I completely agree with Pascal that it's better to get something done than discussing the perfect solution eternally. Of course we still have to discuss what we are doing, but I think that's a given.
I really think the key issue here is the word "member". As Francis wrote already, and we're very aware of that as we discussed it a lot on board meetings, the term is far from being perfect but it's the best we've come up with at this point.
I agree with that. I would suggest to use "core member" or "core contributor" instead. This captures the fact that the people who get opensuse.org addresses are the core of the project and still doesn't exclude anybody from feeling as a member or contributor to the project without formal recognition. -- Cornelius Schumacher <cschum@suse.de> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Feb 11, 2008 10:29 AM, Cornelius Schumacher <cschum@suse.de> wrote:
I would suggest to use "core member" or "core contributor" instead. This captures the fact that the people who get opensuse.org addresses are the core of the project and still doesn't exclude anybody from feeling as a member or contributor to the project without formal recognition.
I simply don't think this confusion arises as much as you are suggesting; I also don't think the word itself implies it. "Core member" would, however, be even more confusing as it's used completely differently in other OSS projects (whereas plain "member" is -- to my knowledge -- only used in a way similar to this, successfully), as I mentioned before. Kind thoughts, -- Francis Giannaros http://francis.giannaros.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Monday 11 February 2008, Francis Giannaros wrote:
On Feb 11, 2008 10:29 AM, Cornelius Schumacher <cschum@suse.de> wrote:
I would suggest to use "core member" or "core contributor" instead. This captures the fact that the people who get opensuse.org addresses are the core of the project and still doesn't exclude anybody from feeling as a member or contributor to the project without formal recognition.
I simply don't think this confusion arises as much as you are suggesting;
Well, I was confused, and I think a couple of others as well. I think the main reason for that is that we don't have an organization behind openSUSE itself where you could be a member from. So when you talk about being a member of openSUSE, it implies the project as a whole.
I also don't think the word itself implies it. "Core member" would, however, be even more confusing as it's used completely differently in other OSS projects
Really? Where is it used completely differently?
(whereas plain "member" is -- to my knowledge -- only used in a way similar to this, successfully), as I mentioned before.
Member is certainly used informally at a lot of places when people are referring to members of a project. In a formal way it's usually only used when there actually is a formal organization where you can formally be a member of. -- Cornelius Schumacher <cschum@suse.de> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Feb 11, 2008 11:02 AM, Cornelius Schumacher <cschum@suse.de> wrote:
On Monday 11 February 2008, Francis Giannaros wrote:
On Feb 11, 2008 10:29 AM, Cornelius Schumacher <cschum@suse.de> wrote:
I would suggest to use "core member" or "core contributor" instead. This captures the fact that the people who get opensuse.org addresses are the core of the project and still doesn't exclude anybody from feeling as a member or contributor to the project without formal recognition.
I simply don't think this confusion arises as much as you are suggesting;
Well, I was confused, and I think a couple of others as well.
If there is no perfect term, then there will certainly be some people that are confused. Since the amount of confused people seem to be so few, and other terms seem to be even more problematic, it seems like the best solution. We can just hope to be perfectly clear in our definition of the term so that when a confused person does come (honestly, I think this is quite rare), there won't be a problem. I think it's defined quite well on the first couple sentences of the page: "openSUSE, being an open and global community project, has contributors and volunteers from all over the world. "openSUSE Members" are specifically distinguished contributors who have brought a continued and substantial contribution to the openSUSE project." Do you agree?
So when you talk about being a member of openSUSE, it implies the project as a whole.
Which is absolutely fine, in my opinion.
I also don't think the word itself implies it. "Core member" would, however, be even more confusing as it's used completely differently in other OSS projects
Really? Where is it used completely differently?
Most open source projects. Like I said, "core contributor/developer" generally refers to people working on the _core_ part of the project. For example in KDE where you work, a core developer might be someone who i.e. hacks on kdelibs, whereas we don't want to restrict openSUSE members to this core part only. We want translators, supporters, and contributors of all kinds to be in theory eligible.
(whereas plain "member" is -- to my knowledge -- only used in a way similar to this, successfully), as I mentioned before.
Member is certainly used informally at a lot of places when people are referring to members of a project. In a formal way it's usually only used when there actually is a formal organization where you can formally be a member of.
The former is almost certainly rarer than the latter, particularly in open source projects (i.e. ubuntu), which is why I think this confusion rarely arises. Kind thoughts, -- Francis Giannaros http://francis.giannaros.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
"Francis Giannaros" <francis@opensuse.org> writes:
On Feb 11, 2008 11:02 AM, Cornelius Schumacher <cschum@suse.de> wrote:
On Monday 11 February 2008, Francis Giannaros wrote:
On Feb 11, 2008 10:29 AM, Cornelius Schumacher <cschum@suse.de> wrote:
I would suggest to use "core member" or "core contributor" instead. This captures the fact that the people who get opensuse.org addresses are the core of the project and still doesn't exclude anybody from feeling as a member or contributor to the project without formal recognition.
I simply don't think this confusion arises as much as you are suggesting;
Well, I was confused, and I think a couple of others as well.
If there is no perfect term, then there will certainly be some people that are confused. Since the amount of confused people seem to be so few, and other terms seem to be even more problematic, it seems like the best solution.
There's indeed no perfect term - the question is which is better. something like "core member" might help indeed (or another annotation) - but I'm not a language expert.
[...] Most open source projects. Like I said, "core contributor/developer" generally refers to people working on the _core_ part of the project. For example in KDE where you work, a core developer might be someone who i.e. hacks on kdelibs, whereas we don't want to restrict openSUSE members to this core part only. We want translators, supporters, and contributors of all kinds to be in theory eligible.
:-( Why is there no adequate expression? Perhaps we should create a new word? ;-) Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, Director Platform / openSUSE, aj@suse.de SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
On Monday 11 February 2008, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
"Francis Giannaros" <francis@opensuse.org> writes:
On Feb 11, 2008 11:02 AM, Cornelius Schumacher <cschum@suse.de> wrote:
On Monday 11 February 2008, Francis Giannaros wrote:
On Feb 11, 2008 10:29 AM, Cornelius Schumacher <cschum@suse.de> wrote:
I would suggest to use "core member" or "core contributor" instead. This captures the fact that the people who get opensuse.org addresses are the core of the project and still doesn't exclude anybody from feeling as a member or contributor to the project without formal recognition.
I simply don't think this confusion arises as much as you are suggesting;
Well, I was confused, and I think a couple of others as well.
If there is no perfect term, then there will certainly be some people that are confused. Since the amount of confused people seem to be so few, and other terms seem to be even more problematic, it seems like the best solution.
There's indeed no perfect term - the question is which is better. something like "core member" might help indeed (or another annotation) - but I'm not a language expert.
[...] Most open source projects. Like I said, "core contributor/developer" generally refers to people working on the _core_ part of the project. For example in KDE where you work, a core developer might be someone who i.e. hacks on kdelibs, whereas we don't want to restrict openSUSE members to this core part only. We want translators, supporters, and contributors of all kinds to be in theory eligible.
:-( Why is there no adequate expression? Perhaps we should create a
new word? ;-) What about (1) "openSUSE contributor" or (2) "official openSUSE contributor"? I'd prefer (1) What I hear in the thread is that several people have an issue with "memberhsip". And I think they are right as membership indicates a fee, a closed circle or a door man. All of that should not apply to openSUSE. We want all more and more people contributing to openSUSE in many different ways and with the email adress we want to give them some recognition.
M
Andreas
-- Michael Löffler, Product Management SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - Nürnberg - AG Nürnberg - HRB 16746 - GF: Markus Rex --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Feb 11, 2008 2:06 PM, Michael Loeffler <michl@novell.com> wrote:
On Monday 11 February 2008, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
"Francis Giannaros" <francis@opensuse.org> writes:
On Feb 11, 2008 11:02 AM, Cornelius Schumacher <cschum@suse.de> wrote:
On Monday 11 February 2008, Francis Giannaros wrote:
On Feb 11, 2008 10:29 AM, Cornelius Schumacher <cschum@suse.de> wrote:
I would suggest to use "core member" or "core contributor" instead. This captures the fact that the people who get opensuse.org addresses are the core of the project and still doesn't exclude anybody from feeling as a member or contributor to the project without formal recognition.
I simply don't think this confusion arises as much as you are suggesting;
Well, I was confused, and I think a couple of others as well.
If there is no perfect term, then there will certainly be some people that are confused. Since the amount of confused people seem to be so few, and other terms seem to be even more problematic, it seems like the best solution.
There's indeed no perfect term - the question is which is better. something like "core member" might help indeed (or another annotation) - but I'm not a language expert.
[...] Most open source projects. Like I said, "core contributor/developer" generally refers to people working on the _core_ part of the project. For example in KDE where you work, a core developer might be someone who i.e. hacks on kdelibs, whereas we don't want to restrict openSUSE members to this core part only. We want translators, supporters, and contributors of all kinds to be in theory eligible.
:-( Why is there no adequate expression? Perhaps we should create a
new word? ;-) What about (1) "openSUSE contributor" or (2) "official openSUSE contributor"? I'd prefer (1) What I hear in the thread is that several people have an issue with "memberhsip".
I have said that the term isn't perfect, but I want to be clear: I still think it's a very good term, consistent, serves its purpose well, and generally very unambiguous. It seems like only Thomas and Cornelius were objecting to this (though Thomas seems to object to the Guiding Principles too), since Roger wants us to think about the implications of the system more than naming (from what I can gather -- correct me if I'm wrong). In comparison to the amount of people that have already applied, and/or others reading this, that's like a 2% objection, if not less. Is there anyone here who realistically thinks there couldn't be a smaller amount of objection with a change like this? :-) I'd say the response so far has been very good, that there's been good discussion, but that it's also patently clear how we should proceed.
And I think they are right as membership indicates a fee, a closed circle or a door man.
The fact that it's an open source project makes it clearer, I think, that no fee would ever be involved. That there's an inner circle of dedicated openSUSE contributors/members can hardly be seen as a negative thing. The key is that it's not an inaccessible or 'secret' inner circle: we should keep things transparent. That there's a doorman is also not negative, since it's not entry to the community that requires direct approval, but of people that are going to be representative in some way of the project, which is hardly unreasonable. "Contributor" is very equivocal as someone who sends one patch is also a contributor, whereas there's a difference with members. "Official contributor" sounds awkward as we're implying that anyone else contributing is an unofficial contributor. Regards, -- Francis Giannaros http://francis.giannaros.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 02:59:23PM +0000, Francis Giannaros wrote:
[...] since Roger wants us to think about the implications of the system more than naming (from what I can gather -- correct me if I'm wrong). In comparison to the amount of people that have already applied, and/or others reading this, that's like a 2% objection, if not less.
Yes - that's right: I'm not so concerned about what things are called as about what they really are. On membership, I believe that some threshold is necessary to prevent "entryism", but that it should be set as low as possible, so that anyone who has a legitimate reason to care about the project can also vote for the Board. I also worry about the fact that a barrier to membership both includes and excludes, and is contrary to the open source ethos. But I am also very concerned about the point that Cornelius made regarding the dangers of having an electorate chosen by the very people it elects. Most of the time, this would not be a problem. But in deciding on the constitution of an organisation, it's the potential problems that one needs to look out for. If there were major disagreements or personality clashes in the future, this could suddenly become a very big problem. And it's clearly not the right way to go in principle: bodies which use this type of rule are known as self-perpetuating oligarchies, which is not a good thing to be. -- ======================== Roger Whittaker roger@disruptive.org.uk http://disruptive.org.uk ======================== --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Feb 11, 2008, at 9:24 AM, Roger Whittaker wrote:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 02:59:23PM +0000, Francis Giannaros wrote:
[...] since Roger wants us to think about the implications of the system more than naming (from what I can gather -- correct me if I'm wrong). In comparison to the amount of people that have already applied, and/or others reading this, that's like a 2% objection, if not less.
Yes - that's right: I'm not so concerned about what things are called as about what they really are.
On membership, I believe that some threshold is necessary to prevent "entryism", but that it should be set as low as possible, so that anyone who has a legitimate reason to care about the project can also vote for the Board. I also worry about the fact that a barrier to membership both includes and excludes, and is contrary to the open source ethos.
But I am also very concerned about the point that Cornelius made regarding the dangers of having an electorate chosen by the very people it elects. Most of the time, this would not be a problem. But in deciding on the constitution of an organisation, it's the potential problems that one needs to look out for. If there were major disagreements or personality clashes in the future, this could suddenly become a very big problem. And it's clearly not the right way to go in principle: bodies which use this type of rule are known as self-perpetuating oligarchies, which is not a good thing to be.
-- ======================== Roger Whittaker roger@disruptive.org.uk http://disruptive.org.uk ======================== --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Personally, I agree that the Members should not be the only ones voting for the Board members. That's like saying only citizens of a country who perform certain hours of community service can vote, plus it is a small conflict of interest. But if we're going to talk about how the Board election should go, perhaps a new thread should be started. -- Kevin "Yo" Dupuy | Public Mail: <kevin@kevinsword.com> Hope for America: Ron Paul for President <RonPaul2008.com> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Francis Giannaros a écrit :
What I hear in the thread is that several people have an issue with "memberhsip".
I have said that the term isn't perfect, but I want to be clear: I still think it's a very good term, consistent, serves its purpose well,
probably a little too general, so yes, ambiguous (but not to an unsuferable extend :-) and generally very unambiguous. It seems like only Thomas and
Cornelius were objecting to this
How many people ar discussing anything on any list? compare to the wiki authors...
correct me if I'm wrong). In comparison to the amount of people that have already applied, and/or others reading this, that's like a 2% objection, if not less.
In french we say "comparaison n'est pas raison" - compare mean nothing. Applying to membership don't mean you approve the word.
but that it's also patently clear how we should proceed.
I present time it's probably too late/not necessary to change the word. I still think it's usefull to add some prefix to show who have real power and who have not (an ordinary member shouldn't have), but this can be done later for example it's not at all clear here when do you write as a project member giving his opinion and when do you write as a board member with authority, so you should have some way (a special e-mail, but it can be anything else clear, for example a special signature) to show the difference. Specially in this discussion, it looks too much like a "all against one" conflit, what I'm shure it's not. Nobody, I hope, discuss your implication in the project and it's good to have such people as you in the board :-)) jdd -- http://www.dodin.net --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Monday 11 February 2008, Francis Giannaros wrote:
"openSUSE, being an open and global community project, has contributors and volunteers from all over the world. "openSUSE Members" are specifically distinguished contributors who have brought a continued and substantial contribution to the openSUSE project."
Do you agree?
Yes, the definition is clear.
I also don't think the word itself implies it. "Core member" would, however, be even more confusing as it's used completely differently in other OSS projects
Really? Where is it used completely differently?
Most open source projects. Like I said, "core contributor/developer" generally refers to people working on the _core_ part of the project. For example in KDE where you work, a core developer might be someone who i.e. hacks on kdelibs,
I don't think that this is entirely correct. In KDE the term "core developer" isn't only used for kdelibs developers. There are also many other projects which use the term "core contributor" to refer to contributors who made significant contributions, but don't necessarily refer to the technical core of the project. See for example https://mobileandembedded.dev.java.net/project_management.html, which interestingly has a definition for "core contributor" which is almost identical to how we have defined the "member" now.
whereas we don't want to restrict openSUSE members to this core part only. We want translators, supporters, and contributors of all kinds to be in theory eligible.
Yes, but I think that's taken care of by not using the term "developer". -- Cornelius Schumacher <cschum@suse.de> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Feb 11, 2008 12:15 PM, Cornelius Schumacher <cschum@suse.de> wrote:
Most open source projects. Like I said, "core contributor/developer" generally refers to people working on the _core_ part of the project. For example in KDE where you work, a core developer might be someone who i.e. hacks on kdelibs,
I don't think that this is entirely correct. In KDE the term "core developer" isn't only used for kdelibs developers.
I didn't say that -- kdelibs was only one example there (kdebase might be another one). But you certainly wouldn't be calling, say, an Amarok developer a "core kde developer" (I'm sorry, this just isn't done). Come on now -- core developer/contributor is for someone working on the core, if anything. Regards, -- Francis Giannaros http://francis.giannaros.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008, Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
I also don't think the word itself implies it. "Core member" would, however, be even more confusing as it's used completely differently in other OSS projects Really? Where is it used completely differently?
See From: "Gerald Pfeifer" <gp@novell.com> Subject: Re: [opensuse-project] IRC cloaks Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.1.00.0802080210180.29964@enan.fvgr> for some examples where core is used by other projects. Gerald -- Dr. Gerald Pfeifer E gp@novell.com SUSE Linux Products GmbH Director Inbound Product Mgmt T +49(911)74053-0 HRB 16746 (AG Nuremberg) openSUSE/SUSE Linux Enterprise F +49(911)74053-483 GF: Markus Rex --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
participants (19)
-
Andreas Jaeger -
Benji Weber -
Bernhard Walle -
Boyd Lynn Gerber -
Bryen -
Clayton -
Cornelius Schumacher -
Dominique Leuenberger -
Francis Giannaros -
Gerald Pfeifer -
Graham Lauder -
jdd -
Kevin Dupuy -
Martin Schlander -
Michael Loeffler -
Pascal Bleser -
Rajko M. -
Roger Whittaker -
Thomas Hertweck