On 02/16/2012 05:10 PM, Bryen M Yunashko wrote:
Generally good, some questions of clarification
On Thu, 2012-02-16 at 12:20 -0500, Robert Schweikert wrote:
Previously we discussed a proposal
a potential for membership lapse. A summary of this discussion can be
found on the wiki, http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Membership_lapse_summary
Based on this summary and the last project meeting, see minutes
, I am
putting forth the proposal below for further discussion, if further
discussion is necessary. This, or a refined proposal will be presented
for a vote to project members for acceptance at some point in the,
hopefully, near future. We agreed on soliciting a vote in the last
To recap, the goal driving this initiative is to provide a more
equitable level between becoming a member and being a member, with focus
on contributions. In order to become a member one has to contribute to
the project and upon completing the membership application show these
contributions to be verified by the membership committee.
As always, please focus on the topic at hand, avoid rants, and be kind.
At a time 4 month' prior to a member's even number year anniversary
(that would be year 2, 4, 6...) attempts will be made to contact the
member via the known e-mail address. Initial contact attempts will be
automated to reduce work for the membership committee.
The automated e-mail will contain a link to a web page that enables the
member to check areas of contributions to the project. Submission of the
form results in automatic membership "renewal" until the next even
number anniversary of the member.
Some clarification requested here. As part of the previous discussion
centered around what to do about "no-longer-contributing" members, does
this part of the proposal indicate that contribution, or
non-contribution since initial membership is not a factor for renewal?
No, contribution is the "renewal". One has to contribute to become a
member in the first place, why would we not expect the same level of
effort from the person to be a member?
Considering the latest input, we'd have different levels of membership
- honorary member
For definitions see my earlier response to Nelson's message
I'm generally fine with that. Just want to see it clarified that
contribution is definitely not going to be part of renewal criteria.
It is all about contribution, that's in the end why we have a
contribution criteria to become a member in the first place.
Should the automated e-mail bounce 2 more
automated attempts will be
made to contact the member within 3 weeks of the initial automated
e-mail. Should these automated attempts fail a member of the membership
committee will make an attempt to locate the member via ML messages,
IRC, and possibly other means such as social media. This is a best
effort attempt to contact the member.
Should the automated e-mail arrive (not bounce) but the web form should
not get submitted, 2 more automated attempts will be made to contact the
member within 3 weeks of the initial automated e-mail. Should these
automated attempts fail a member of the membership committee will make
an attempt to contact the member with a personal e-mail message or
locate the member in IRC, Connect or other media. The member will be
requested to submit the web form. This is a best effort attempt to
contact the member.
I'm all for engagement and contact, but I fear this might cause quite a
bit of bureaucratic overhead. If we were to implement this today, and
we used the last election votes (218) as an indicator, then that's ~300
people that the membership committee is going to have to go out and
follow up on.
Yes, but not all at once. Whenever we start this new process/policy we
should apply the "even year anniversary date rule". Presuming that not
all 300 of those we might have to contact have an even number
anniversary on the same date, in the same month or year the work is
In addition, of those 300 we will probably have a chunk of people that
did not vote, but that contribute. Therefore, they might just submit the
web form to indicate that they are still active and no personal follow
up will be required.
I am not proposing that we do everything at once, a gradual introduction
is sufficient, IMHO.
I think that the personal followup should be considered a courtesy step
rather than a requirement step within this proposal. There are many
factors that can affect whether our *volunteer* membership committee can
commit to doing such detective work.
Let me propose this change in wording from:
"...a member of the membership committee will make
an attempt to contact the member..."
"...a member of the membership committee may make
an attempt to contact the member..."
Well, but his was exactly one of the points, even pointed out by you, in
the first go around. People being afraid that we might "loose" someone
because automated e-mails get ignore/filtered/whatever, or e-mail
addresses may have changed.....
Based on that rather strong sentiment that we need to go beyond just
automated e-mail I am proposing the new wording.
As pointed out above, I think it will not be an excessive requirement
for the membership committee to fulfill.
In the event that a member cannot be contacted in
the 4 month time frame
or a member is no longer contributing to the project the member will
become an Honorary member.
I think we need a better name for this. When I think of "Honorary" I
think of it as a gift bestowed on someone who hasn't been a member yet.
Like an honorary degree is granted to someone who may have never
attended that college.
The "honorary" member in question here is someone who was at one point a
member. That doesn't jibe with the perception that "honorary" bestows
in my example.
I think "Contributor" is a better term to use and in fact it is more
A contributor should also be active, just like a member. Again, we are
searching for the answer to
What do we do with those that are members but no longer contribute?
Calling those people "contributor" would be very misleading in my
opinion as they do not contribute any more.
Lapsing their membership was not very popular, thus we end up with a
Honorary members retain their @opensuse e-mail
honorary members may no longer participate in any voting activities that
are open only to members.
Resuming contributions to the project at any time will provide an
honorary member with the opportunity to request reinstatement as a
member to resume vote participation.
The "resuming contributions" lends the question I posed earlier about
criteria for renewal. I think we have thus a confusing point here that
needs clarification. As I read this overall proposal, it states that
if you are presently a member and wish to renew it, no proof of
contribution is required.
No, the proposal states that to "renew" you go to a web page and mark
off the areas where you contribute.
But if you have become an honorary member,
proof of new contribution since last membership-expiration is required
(referring to the 'resuming contributions' part.)
As stated in the intro of the original mail, the goal is to make
becoming a member and being a member a bit more equitable.
Based on your comments I am not sure we are looking at the same text ;)
Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU
SUSE-IBM Software Integration Center LINUX
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner(a)opensuse.org