Previously we discussed a proposal (http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-project/2012-01/msg00381.html) about 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 http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-project/2012-02/msg00064.html, 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 project meeting.
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.
Proposal: ======= 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.
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.
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.
Honorary members retain their @opensuse e-mail address. However, 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. =====
In conjunction with this proposal, I propose that we implement infrastructure such that initial contribution verification is simplified and ongoing contribution recognition is possible, see FATE 313229 https://features.opensuse.org/313229. This infrastructure would eliminate the need for contributing members to visit a web page to mark their contributions and membership "renewal" would take place automatically. In addition this infrastructure will reduce the tedious work the membership team completes today and thus will improve the processing speed of new membership applications.
This proposal also requires the implementation of some basic infrastructure, or will put a good chunk of work onto the membership committee.
Last but not least, please keep in mind that this is about contributions. Yes, voting is effected, but should not be the center of the discussion. Basically it is expected that members are interested in voting. If a large percentage of members do not vote this, in and of itself sends a clear message that there's something going on with the project. Thus, we do not need to discuss the "what if I don't want to vote..." or "voting should be mandatory..." arguments we have heard previously.
Later, Robert
My suggestion (distinction between voting member and member):
Would it be possible that:
* A contributor is a contributor, someone who places effort and time on openSUSE (validated by whoever has such powers); * Member - upgrade to contributor status, in other words, a political contributor
"Contributor vs Member" is less confusing than "Member (non-voting) vs Member (voting)". To make this simple... Contributors care about the technological advance of openSUSE and keeping it alive without any interest on governance and politics/religion, while "Members" are the political comissars who do the politics and the religion thing.
NM
2012/2/16 Robert Schweikert rjschwei@suse.com:
Previously we discussed a proposal (http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-project/2012-01/msg00381.html) about 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 http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-project/2012-02/msg00064.html, 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 project meeting.
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.
Proposal:
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.
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.
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.
Honorary members retain their @opensuse e-mail address. However, 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. =====
In conjunction with this proposal, I propose that we implement infrastructure such that initial contribution verification is simplified and ongoing contribution recognition is possible, see FATE 313229 https://features.opensuse.org/313229. This infrastructure would eliminate the need for contributing members to visit a web page to mark their contributions and membership "renewal" would take place automatically. In addition this infrastructure will reduce the tedious work the membership team completes today and thus will improve the processing speed of new membership applications.
This proposal also requires the implementation of some basic infrastructure, or will put a good chunk of work onto the membership committee.
Last but not least, please keep in mind that this is about contributions. Yes, voting is effected, but should not be the center of the discussion. Basically it is expected that members are interested in voting. If a large percentage of members do not vote this, in and of itself sends a clear message that there's something going on with the project. Thus, we do not need to discuss the "what if I don't want to vote..." or "voting should be mandatory..." arguments we have heard previously.
Later, Robert
-- Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU SUSE-IBM Software Integration Center LINUX Tech Lead rjschwei@suse.com rschweik@ca.ibm.com 781-464-8147 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
* Nelson Marques nmo.marques@gmail.com [02-16-12 13:03]:
My suggestion (distinction between voting member and member):
Would it be possible that:
- A contributor is a contributor, someone who places effort and time
on openSUSE (validated by whoever has such powers);
- Member - upgrade to contributor status, in other words, a
political contributor
"Contributor vs Member" is less confusing than "Member (non-voting) vs Member (voting)". To make this simple... Contributors care about the technological advance of openSUSE and keeping it alive without any interest on governance and politics/religion, while "Members" are the political comissars who do the politics and the religion thing.
But you have drawn an incorrect comparison above. You have not allowed for that "member" who "places effort and time on openSUSE", nor that "contributor" who is interested in steering and voting. And "politics and the religion thing" comment is presented here in a degrading manor. It should not be described as such nor held in that light, ie: something personal that you should keep at home.
I vote, test factory and contribute to solving problems on the mailing lists. Does that make me a *contributor* or a step-child *member*?
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 13:13:47 -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
But you have drawn an incorrect comparison above. You have not allowed for that "member" who "places effort and time on openSUSE", nor that "contributor" who is interested in steering and voting.
I disagree. Nelson's suggesting that "Member" be a superset of "Contributor" which is a reasonable compromise.
Jim
On 02/16/2012 03:26 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 13:13:47 -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
But you have drawn an incorrect comparison above. You have not allowed for that "member" who "places effort and time on openSUSE", nor that "contributor" who is interested in steering and voting.
I disagree. Nelson's suggesting that "Member" be a superset of "Contributor" which is a reasonable compromise.
I would say that Nelson's proposal can be interpreted either way (obviously):
- Member as being a superset of contributor, i.e. contributes technically and in governance issues.
or
- Member as being someone who contributes to governance issues only.
Either way it is interpreted, it misses the heart of the matter.
What do we do with people that no longer contribute (technical or governance) but have done so at some point in the past?
The refined proposal suggests to move members that no longer contribute (technical or governance) to "honorary member" status based on a prescribed non contribution period of 2 years. For everyone else nothing changes.
We already have "contributor" status, although maybe not "officially/formally" recognized. Those that just want to contribute on a technical level can do just that and do not have to apply for membership. There's no change to today's practice.
Those that contribute and are interested in governance and making their voice heard in matters that get voted upon apply for membership. Once a member continue to do what you do w.r.t. contributions and make your voice count when there are governance issues that get decided via a vote. There's no change to today's practice.
Those that are members but have lost interest, time, or whatever, and no longer contribute for a period of 2 years become honorary members. This is a change to today's practice.
Robert
2012/2/16 Robert Schweikert rjschwei@suse.com:
On 02/16/2012 03:26 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 13:13:47 -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
But you have drawn an incorrect comparison above. You have not allowed for that "member" who "places effort and time on openSUSE", nor that "contributor" who is interested in steering and voting.
I disagree. Nelson's suggesting that "Member" be a superset of "Contributor" which is a reasonable compromise.
I would say that Nelson's proposal can be interpreted either way (obviously):
- Member as being a superset of contributor, i.e. contributes technically
and in governance issues.
or
- Member as being someone who contributes to governance issues only.
Robert,
Maybe it's a language issue, thinking on Portuguese and typing in English might lead to that... my intention with that intervention has one goal:
1) Neutralize the potential confusion between 'non-voting members' and 'voting members'.
Given the current rules, everyone who contributes activelly can apply for membership, which is somehow a recognition for ones effort on improving openSUSE. If this this granted and labelled as 'contributor', then from that stage, those wanting to enroll in 'voting' or 'foundation' can for sure 'upgrade' it to member.
A 'contribution' can be made in very different aspects, including translation, documentation, bug reports/fixes, code, marketing, ambassadorial work, etc.
Either way it is interpreted, it misses the heart of the matter.
What do we do with people that no longer contribute (technical or governance) but have done so at some point in the past?
Not my fight (as in, I have no interest in that... it's up for those who raise such questions to find a fix, my intervention was just to try to improve terminology that might become confusing on the med/long run).
The refined proposal suggests to move members that no longer contribute (technical or governance) to "honorary member" status based on a prescribed non contribution period of 2 years. For everyone else nothing changes.
We already have "contributor" status, although maybe not "officially/formally" recognized. Those that just want to contribute on a technical level can do just that and do not have to apply for membership. There's no change to today's practice.
Those that contribute and are interested in governance and making their voice heard in matters that get voted upon apply for membership. Once a member continue to do what you do w.r.t. contributions and make your voice count when there are governance issues that get decided via a vote. There's no change to today's practice.
Those that are members but have lost interest, time, or whatever, and no longer contribute for a period of 2 years become honorary members. This is a change to today's practice.
Robert
-- Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU SUSE-IBM Software Integration Center LINUX Tech Lead rjschwei@suse.com rschweik@ca.ibm.com 781-464-8147 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
On 02/16/2012 04:03 PM, Nelson Marques wrote:
2012/2/16 Robert Schweikertrjschwei@suse.com:
On 02/16/2012 03:26 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 13:13:47 -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
But you have drawn an incorrect comparison above. You have not allowed for that "member" who "places effort and time on openSUSE", nor that "contributor" who is interested in steering and voting.
I disagree. Nelson's suggesting that "Member" be a superset of "Contributor" which is a reasonable compromise.
I would say that Nelson's proposal can be interpreted either way (obviously):
- Member as being a superset of contributor, i.e. contributes technically
and in governance issues.
or
- Member as being someone who contributes to governance issues only.
Robert,
Maybe it's a language issue, thinking on Portuguese and typing in English might lead to that... my intention with that intervention has one goal:
- Neutralize the potential confusion between 'non-voting members'
and 'voting members'.
Given the current rules, everyone who contributes activelly can apply for membership, which is somehow a recognition for ones effort on improving openSUSE. If this this granted and labelled as 'contributor', then from that stage, those wanting to enroll in 'voting' or 'foundation' can for sure 'upgrade' it to member.
A 'contribution' can be made in very different aspects, including translation, documentation, bug reports/fixes, code, marketing, ambassadorial work, etc.
Either way it is interpreted, it misses the heart of the matter.
What do we do with people that no longer contribute (technical or governance) but have done so at some point in the past?
Not my fight (as in, I have no interest in that... it's up for those who raise such questions to find a fix, my intervention was just to try to improve terminology that might become confusing on the med/long run).
I understand, but that's the question at hand and the question that has been raised that we are trying to address and solve.
It appears to me that you would like to see a more "formal" recognition of a contributor such that we would have a 3 tier membership level.
- contributor ~ Formally recognized with e-mail address privileges and maybe some others but non voting. This recognition would follow the current membership application process. - member ~ is a contributor with voting interest and maybe some other "perks" - honorary member ~ people that no longer contribute to the project but have done so in the past, according to the guidelines in the proposal in the first message of this thread. Honorary members are composed of people that were either part of the member or contributor group at some point.
this appears reasonable to me and can certainly be incorporated into the over all "policy".
Later, Robert
Le jeudi 16 février 2012, à 17:04 -0500, Robert Schweikert a écrit :
It appears to me that you would like to see a more "formal" recognition of a contributor such that we would have a 3 tier membership level.
- contributor ~ Formally recognized with e-mail address privileges and maybe some others but non voting. This recognition would follow the current membership application process.
- member ~ is a contributor with voting interest and maybe some other "perks"
- honorary member ~ people that no longer contribute to the project but have done so in the past, according to the guidelines in the proposal in the first message of this thread. Honorary members are composed of people that were either part of the member or contributor group at some point.
this appears reasonable to me and can certainly be incorporated into the over all "policy".
This might make sense, but if we go this way, I think that "contributor" is a bad name, and can lead to many confusions. I don't want us to say to someone who doesn't have big enough contributions "sorry, you're not a contributor". Can't find a better name right now, though.
Vincent
On Thu, 2012-02-16 at 17:04 -0500, Robert Schweikert wrote:
I understand, but that's the question at hand and the question that has been raised that we are trying to address and solve.
It appears to me that you would like to see a more "formal" recognition of a contributor such that we would have a 3 tier membership level.
- contributor ~ Formally recognized with e-mail address privileges and maybe some others but non voting. This recognition would follow the current membership application process.
- member ~ is a contributor with voting interest and maybe some other
"perks"
- honorary member ~ people that no longer contribute to the project but have done so in the past, according to the guidelines in the proposal in the first message of this thread. Honorary members are composed of people that were either part of the member or contributor group
at some point.
this appears reasonable to me and can certainly be incorporated into the over all "policy".
Later, Robert
I dunno about this. And I'm not sure that's what Nelson was aiming for, but I could have mis-read him. The way I'm reading this revision, Robert, you're saying that somehow a contributor still needs to go through some application process before being recognized as having contributed to openSUSE in some way. I'd like to be very careful about this.
While the application process is a way to formally recognize contribution and allow contributors to have a formal say in the shape and direction of the Project, we should still have a pervasive attitude that we recognize and fully appreciate you as a contributor regardless of whether you decided to apply for membership or not.
In other words, why would someone apply to be in the "Contributor Tier" and not "Member Tier" when Member Tier does not (or rather should not) require you to participate in governance matters? By making a distinction between tiers, we are inherently implying that you *must* participate in governance matters, even if it isn't explicitly stated anywhere.
Creating a membership tier for "Contributor-only" would send a wrong message to people that they aren't part of the community if they haven't contributed enough.
Bryen M Yunashko openSUSE Project
* Bryen M Yunashko suserocks@bryen.com [02-16-12 17:33]:
Creating a membership tier for "Contributor-only" would send a wrong message to people that they aren't part of the community if they haven't contributed enough.
+1
A member is a *member* is a *member*. There are no requirement bound to whoever becomes a member past contributing is some manner, rather it is recognition and awarding of an email address which does not have to be accepted. As far as I have read here, the only requirement of a member is that he not abuse the title in the manners described previous.
On 02/16/2012 05:30 PM, Bryen M Yunashko wrote:
On Thu, 2012-02-16 at 17:04 -0500, Robert Schweikert wrote:
I understand, but that's the question at hand and the question that has been raised that we are trying to address and solve.
It appears to me that you would like to see a more "formal" recognition of a contributor such that we would have a 3 tier membership level.
- contributor ~ Formally recognized with e-mail address privileges and maybe some others but non voting. This recognition would follow the current membership application process.
- member ~ is a contributor with voting interest and maybe some other
"perks"
- honorary member ~ people that no longer contribute to the project but have done so in the past, according to the guidelines in the proposal in the first message of this thread. Honorary members are composed of people that were either part of the member or contributor group
at some point.
this appears reasonable to me and can certainly be incorporated into the over all "policy".
Later, Robert
I dunno about this. And I'm not sure that's what Nelson was aiming for, but I could have mis-read him. The way I'm reading this revision, Robert, you're saying that somehow a contributor still needs to go through some application process before being recognized as having contributed to openSUSE in some way. I'd like to be very careful about this.
While the application process is a way to formally recognize contribution and allow contributors to have a formal say in the shape and direction of the Project, we should still have a pervasive attitude that we recognize and fully appreciate you as a contributor regardless of whether you decided to apply for membership or not.
In other words, why would someone apply to be in the "Contributor Tier" and not "Member Tier" when Member Tier does not (or rather should not) require you to participate in governance matters? By making a distinction between tiers, we are inherently implying that you *must* participate in governance matters, even if it isn't explicitly stated anywhere.
Creating a membership tier for "Contributor-only" would send a wrong message to people that they aren't part of the community if they haven't contributed enough.
True too, this message should be avoided.
We do welcome contributions whether someone goes through an application process or not is immaterial.
I have let myself get sucked into the "vote" vs. "no vote" corner, when it is all about contributions, and voting is a loosely connected "side show" to this discussion.
Mea culpa Robert
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 15:54:26 -0500, Robert Schweikert wrote:
Those that are members but have lost interest, time, or whatever, and no longer contribute for a period of 2 years become honorary members. This is a change to today's practice.
That makes sense to me. That means (presumably) that they'd maintain, for example, their opensuse.org e-mail address, which was one of the issues raised in the last discussion.
And it is an ongoing acknowledgment of past contribution.
Jim
2012/2/16 Jim Henderson hendersj@gmail.com:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 15:54:26 -0500, Robert Schweikert wrote:
Those that are members but have lost interest, time, or whatever, and no longer contribute for a period of 2 years become honorary members. This is a change to today's practice.
That makes sense to me. That means (presumably) that they'd maintain, for example, their opensuse.org e-mail address, which was one of the issues raised in the last discussion.
And it is an ongoing acknowledgment of past contribution.
The email question is somehow important, but there's far more important reasons to keep the emails, for example git commits, changelog entries, patches, etc.
One quick example... Lets imagine that Ubuntu starts to be a community players and works their issues with upstream GTK for example. That would most likely enable Unity to enter openSUSE. There's a lot of work done in GNOME:Ayatana and it's marked on the changelogs with 'nmarques@opensuse.org', which doesn't exist anymore (not that I care). If one wants to ask something, might be hard (or maybe not) to find me around, thus forcing people to invest maybe more time than necessary because they can't contact the author of a patch or package.
That should be the real reason why mails should be kept, at least it seems more reasonable and justified than just 'recognition for past work'.
NM
Jim
Jim Henderson Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 21:23:47 +0000, Nelson Marques wrote:
2012/2/16 Jim Henderson hendersj@gmail.com:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 15:54:26 -0500, Robert Schweikert wrote:
Those that are members but have lost interest, time, or whatever, and no longer contribute for a period of 2 years become honorary members. This is a change to today's practice.
That makes sense to me. That means (presumably) that they'd maintain, for example, their opensuse.org e-mail address, which was one of the issues raised in the last discussion.
And it is an ongoing acknowledgment of past contribution.
The email question is somehow important, but there's far more important reasons to keep the emails, for example git commits, changelog entries, patches, etc.
One quick example... Lets imagine that Ubuntu starts to be a community players and works their issues with upstream GTK for example. That would most likely enable Unity to enter openSUSE. There's a lot of work done in GNOME:Ayatana and it's marked on the changelogs with 'nmarques@opensuse.org', which doesn't exist anymore (not that I care). If one wants to ask something, might be hard (or maybe not) to find me around, thus forcing people to invest maybe more time than necessary because they can't contact the author of a patch or package.
That should be the real reason why mails should be kept, at least it seems more reasonable and justified than just 'recognition for past work'.
I didn't mean the e-mail address was the acknowledgment of past contribution, the "honorary member" is. Sorry for not being clear on that point.
Jim
Jim,
This is not really directed to you... but it's a fun quotation that leaves people to think a bit:
“It is not titles that honor men, but men that honor titles.” // Nicollo Machiavelli
It's redundant to me all of that. As said before my only interest, which I believe to be in openSUSE best interest as well, is that terminology isn't confusing and that people understand what it means. All the rest, it's really for people to decide. So far good work has been done, so I'm not poluting this thread anymore.
If my suggestion is considered, good. If it's implemented, even better, if any other is taken, make it happen.
NM
2012/2/16 Jim Henderson hendersj@gmail.com:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 21:23:47 +0000, Nelson Marques wrote:
2012/2/16 Jim Henderson hendersj@gmail.com:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 15:54:26 -0500, Robert Schweikert wrote:
Those that are members but have lost interest, time, or whatever, and no longer contribute for a period of 2 years become honorary members. This is a change to today's practice.
That makes sense to me. That means (presumably) that they'd maintain, for example, their opensuse.org e-mail address, which was one of the issues raised in the last discussion.
And it is an ongoing acknowledgment of past contribution.
The email question is somehow important, but there's far more important reasons to keep the emails, for example git commits, changelog entries, patches, etc.
One quick example... Lets imagine that Ubuntu starts to be a community players and works their issues with upstream GTK for example. That would most likely enable Unity to enter openSUSE. There's a lot of work done in GNOME:Ayatana and it's marked on the changelogs with 'nmarques@opensuse.org', which doesn't exist anymore (not that I care). If one wants to ask something, might be hard (or maybe not) to find me around, thus forcing people to invest maybe more time than necessary because they can't contact the author of a patch or package.
That should be the real reason why mails should be kept, at least it seems more reasonable and justified than just 'recognition for past work'.
I didn't mean the e-mail address was the acknowledgment of past contribution, the "honorary member" is. Sorry for not being clear on that point.
Jim
-- Jim Henderson Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 20:26:17 +0000 (UTC) Jim Henderson hendersj@gmail.com wrote:
I disagree. Nelson's suggesting that "Member" be a superset of "Contributor" which is a reasonable compromise.
Currently members are subset of contributors, but when we are about naming I see this as names that we can consider:
Voting member - active members that have stake in a project, in other words continuous contributions. Benefits: Listed as a voting member on a public web page. Voting right for <description>. <more> Enter: Nomination approved and accepted by person, or application approval. Process: Nominated or applied for. Conditions: Must be a member. End: Can expire or resign.
Member - any regular contributor without regard to size of contributions. Benefits: Listed as a member on a public web page. <more> Enter: Nomination approved and accepted, or application approval. Conditions: Nomination or applied for. Regular contributions. End: Can expire or resign.
Contributor - anyone with even a single contribution. Benefits: Listed as a contributor on a public web page. <more> Enter: Nomination approved and accepted, or application approval. Conditions: Nominated or applied for. End: No expiration. Can ask for removal from the list.
Emeritus member - inactive member or voting member with past contributions Benefits: Listed as a emeritus member on a public web page. Easy come back. Enter: Per Robert's proposal. Conditions: Detected and confirmed as inactive. Ends: No expiration. Can ask for removal from the list.
Honorable member - exceptional title for people that are not or will not actively participate in the project, but project owes them a lot. Benefits: Listed as a honorable member on a public web page. Enter: Nomination approved and accepted. Conditions: Nominated. End: No expiration. Can ask for removal from the list.
Supporter - support, for instance in media outlets. Benefits: Listed as a suporter on a public web page. Enter: Nomination approved and accepted. Conditions: Nominated. End: No expiration. Can ask for removal from the list.
User - anyone that claims to use openSUSE and wants to be listed on a public web page under real name.
All above: Complicated - yes and no. It is just as detailed as has to be to cover this topic for some time.
Necessary - yes, as it gives people public recognition that can be used as reference when needed. To us as a project it will help to gain more contributions as about everyone will know that we don't forget.
What are preconditions to have all that? Robert's feature request https://features.opensuse.org/313229 . Process to collect information, and actual tools to automate process. Some parts can be applied right now.
Would that take time from other projects? Maybe, but as in a desktop discussion, people that will devote time to this are most likely not those that will otherwise do something else.
* Rajko M. rmatov101@charter.net [02-17-12 00:25]:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 20:26:17 +0000 (UTC) Jim Henderson hendersj@gmail.com wrote:
I disagree. Nelson's suggesting that "Member" be a superset of "Contributor" which is a reasonable compromise.
Currently members are subset of contributors, but when we are about naming I see this as names that we can consider:
Voting member - active members that have stake in a project, in other words continuous contributions. Benefits: Listed as a voting member on a public web page. Voting right for <description>. <more> Enter: Nomination approved and accepted by person, or application approval. Process: Nominated or applied for. Conditions: Must be a member. End: Can expire or resign.
Member - any regular contributor without regard to size of contributions. Benefits: Listed as a member on a public web page. <more> Enter: Nomination approved and accepted, or application approval. Conditions: Nomination or applied for. Regular contributions. End: Can expire or resign.
Contributor - anyone with even a single contribution. Benefits: Listed as a contributor on a public web page. <more> Enter: Nomination approved and accepted, or application approval. Conditions: Nominated or applied for. End: No expiration. Can ask for removal from the list.
Emeritus member - inactive member or voting member with past contributions Benefits: Listed as a emeritus member on a public web page. Easy come back. Enter: Per Robert's proposal. Conditions: Detected and confirmed as inactive. Ends: No expiration. Can ask for removal from the list.
Honorable member - exceptional title for people that are not or will not actively participate in the project, but project owes them a lot. Benefits: Listed as a honorable member on a public web page. Enter: Nomination approved and accepted. Conditions: Nominated. End: No expiration. Can ask for removal from the list.
Supporter - support, for instance in media outlets. Benefits: Listed as a suporter on a public web page. Enter: Nomination approved and accepted. Conditions: Nominated. End: No expiration. Can ask for removal from the list.
User - anyone that claims to use openSUSE and wants to be listed on a public web page under real name.
All above: Complicated - yes and no. It is just as detailed as has to be to cover this topic for some time.
Necessary - yes, as it gives people public recognition that can be used as reference when needed. To us as a project it will help to gain more contributions as about everyone will know that we don't forget.
What are preconditions to have all that? Robert's feature request https://features.opensuse.org/313229 . Process to collect information, and actual tools to automate process. Some parts can be applied right now.
Would that take time from other projects? Maybe, but as in a desktop discussion, people that will devote time to this are most likely not those that will otherwise do something else.
Much, much simpler:
Members: Active in some fashion, enough to have been accepted as members Voting not a condition or necessity Politics not a condition or necessity Activity *is* a condition Inactive-Member: Previously accepted but unreachable to ascertain status. Non voting, cannot advise voting eminent anyway. email addresses continue ......
Member/Inactive-Member status to be determined by what-ever proposal is ultimately accepted.
case closed.
2012/2/16 Patrick Shanahan paka@opensuse.org:
- Nelson Marques nmo.marques@gmail.com [02-16-12 13:03]:
My suggestion (distinction between voting member and member):
Would it be possible that:
* A contributor is a contributor, someone who places effort and time on openSUSE (validated by whoever has such powers); * Member - upgrade to contributor status, in other words, a political contributor
"Contributor vs Member" is less confusing than "Member (non-voting) vs Member (voting)". To make this simple... Contributors care about the technological advance of openSUSE and keeping it alive without any interest on governance and politics/religion, while "Members" are the political comissars who do the politics and the religion thing.
But you have drawn an incorrect comparison above. You have not allowed for that "member" who "places effort and time on openSUSE", nor that "contributor" who is interested in steering and voting. And "politics and
Dear Sir,
As I said previously, a 'member' should be a 'contributor' upgrade kinda of thing, this to say: contributors are recognized by their active contributions on the project, and if they want to go political, they can/should upgrade to full member.
I have my time to give to explore things, package stuff and enjoy my time with the people I like, but I don't want to be 'forced' to vote, neither I want to do "political" stuff. I'm happy with the label 'community contributor', and I've recently resigned by 'membership' because no one in this world is going to force me to vote, and my stance is pretty clear, as always has been.... I'd rather live one more day as a wolf, than an entire life as a lamb.
the religion thing" comment is presented here in a degrading manor. It should not be described as such nor held in that light, ie: something personal that you should keep at home.
You are free to take whatever conclusion you want, I respect it, though I don't entirely agree with it.
I vote, test factory and contribute to solving problems on the mailing lists. Does that make me a *contributor* or a step-child *member*?
"I'm not interested in preserving the status quo; I want to overthrow it." // Machiavelli
-- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA HOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://linuxcounter.net -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
* Nelson Marques nmo.marques@gmail.com [02-16-12 15:46]:
As I said previously, a 'member' should be a 'contributor' upgrade kinda of thing, this to say: contributors are recognized by their active contributions on the project, and if they want to go political, they can/should upgrade to full member.
I have my time to give to explore things, package stuff and enjoy my time with the people I like, but I don't want to be 'forced' to vote, neither I want to do "political" stuff. I'm happy with the label 'community contributor', and I've recently resigned by 'membership' because no one in this world is going to force me to vote, and my stance is pretty clear, as always has been.... I'd rather live one more day as a wolf, than an entire life as a lamb.
Then you are harping about something that is not. Noone is *forced* to vote or denied anything except the expression of their wishes via voting if they choose not to vote. You have given up your "membership" over nothing. As far as not wanting to be involved in or do "political stuff", your mere participation in the mailing lists and/or this thread is "political" all the way to expressing your disdain for your mis-understood requirement for voting.
Voting is a *privilege* gained by membership, not a requirement.
2012/2/16 Patrick Shanahan paka@opensuse.org:
- Nelson Marques nmo.marques@gmail.com [02-16-12 15:46]:
As I said previously, a 'member' should be a 'contributor' upgrade kinda of thing, this to say: contributors are recognized by their active contributions on the project, and if they want to go political, they can/should upgrade to full member.
I have my time to give to explore things, package stuff and enjoy my time with the people I like, but I don't want to be 'forced' to vote, neither I want to do "political" stuff. I'm happy with the label 'community contributor', and I've recently resigned by 'membership' because no one in this world is going to force me to vote, and my stance is pretty clear, as always has been.... I'd rather live one more day as a wolf, than an entire life as a lamb.
Then you are harping about something that is not. Noone is *forced* to vote or denied anything except the expression of their wishes via voting
You probably missed the thread.
if they choose not to vote. You have given up your "membership" over nothing. As far as not wanting to be involved in or do "political stuff",
It's was an earned right... It's a personal choice...
your mere participation in the mailing lists and/or this thread is "political" all the way to expressing your disdain for your mis-understood requirement for voting.
Don't rush in and try to punk me... You will fail.
Voting is a *privilege* gained by membership, not a requirement.
Earned ;)
-- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA HOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://linuxcounter.net -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
* Nelson Marques nmo.marques@gmail.com [02-16-12 17:38]:
2012/2/16 Patrick Shanahan paka@opensuse.org:
- Nelson Marques nmo.marques@gmail.com [02-16-12 15:46]:
As I said previously, a 'member' should be a 'contributor' upgrade kinda of thing, this to say: contributors are recognized by their active contributions on the project, and if they want to go political, they can/should upgrade to full member.
I have my time to give to explore things, package stuff and enjoy my time with the people I like, but I don't want to be 'forced' to vote, neither I want to do "political" stuff. I'm happy with the label 'community contributor', and I've recently resigned by 'membership' because no one in this world is going to force me to vote, and my stance is pretty clear, as always has been.... I'd rather live one more day as a wolf, than an entire life as a lamb.
Then you are harping about something that is not. Noone is *forced* to vote or denied anything except the expression of their wishes via voting
You probably missed the thread.
No, I was here and read it *entirely* and still do not understand where *anyone* was *required* to vote. It is/was *not* so!
if they choose not to vote. You have given up your "membership" over nothing. As far as not wanting to be involved in or do "political stuff",
It's was an earned right... It's a personal choice...
Granted, but *you* put it into a different light.
your mere participation in the mailing lists and/or this thread is "political" all the way to expressing your disdain for your mis-understood requirement for voting.
Don't rush in and try to punk me... You will fail.
older, perhaps not wiser, but well, fit and able to do battle :^)
Voting is a *privilege* gained by membership, not a requirement.
Earned ;)
Membership is "earned". Voting is a *privilege* comming with membership.
But this should be enought "politicking" for the day.
On 17/02/12 09:27, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
- Nelson Marquesnmo.marques@gmail.com [02-16-12 15:46]:
As I said previously, a 'member' should be a 'contributor' upgrade kinda of thing, this to say: contributors are recognized by their active contributions on the project, and if they want to go political, they can/should upgrade to full member.
I have my time to give to explore things, package stuff and enjoy my time with the people I like, but I don't want to be 'forced' to vote, neither I want to do "political" stuff. I'm happy with the label 'community contributor', and I've recently resigned by 'membership' because no one in this world is going to force me to vote, and my stance is pretty clear, as always has been.... I'd rather live one more day as a wolf, than an entire life as a lamb.
Then you are harping about something that is not. Noone is *forced* to vote or denied anything except the expression of their wishes via voting if they choose not to vote. You have given up your "membership" over nothing. As far as not wanting to be involved in or do "political stuff", your mere participation in the mailing lists and/or this thread is "political" all the way to expressing your disdain for your mis-understood requirement for voting.
Voting is a *privilege* gained by membership, not a requirement.
Sorry peoples, but all this is really ridiculous even though it is well meant and based on benevolent motives.
I don't mean to be offensive but, really, you need to start off with the BASICS first.
Define MEMBERSHIP first, to start the ball rolling.
Once you have defined MEMBERSHIP and the criteria on how to achieve MEMBERSHIP then you can go on with this discussion.
At the moment everybody has assumed that what is written in
http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Members
is gospel, everything clearly defined, and accepted by all as THE definition of MEMBERSHIP - and all is well with the world.
Here is what I find as one of the criteria for "membership" as currently "defined":
QUOTE
"openSUSE Members" are contributors who have brought a *continued and substantial contribution* to the openSUSE project.
UNQUOTE
Question: what does "*continued* and *substantial* *contribution*" mean?
"Continued". Over what period? A week, a month, 10 years?
"Substantial". A bit more than "little" but not as big as "gigantic" perhaps? Or maybe even "mammoth"?
"Contribution". My Thesaurus shows for "contribution"-
addition bestowal donation gift grant input offering subscription
What are we talking about here?
Then there is this:
QUOTE
_Warning_ Please ensure to *contribute first* to the openSUSE Project *then* apply for membership. If you want to get involved, the first step is to visit this wiki page http://en.opensuse.org/Portal:How_to_participate
UNQUOTE
(There's that "contribute" word again.)
And what does this really mean? You must contribute to the openSUSE-project mail list before even thinking about asking for membership?
Further, one finds this:
QUOTE
openSUSE is shaped by whomever contributes. If you are involved and want to make even more of a difference, you should become a member. Your involvement will be checked by the openSUSE Membership officials http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Membership_officials team.
UNQUOTE
(The word "contributes" comes yet again....)
I hate to ask this simple question but what criteria do these "openSUSE Membership officials" use to decide "membership"? Where is there such a list available? (And who made them "officials"?)
Then there is this:
QUOTE
Hint: register your nick first at freenode http://freenode.net/faq.shtml#nicksetup to ensure you can receive an @opensuse/member/username IRC cloak http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_cloaks!
UNQUOTE
This is all mickey-mouse stuff!
I faced a more adult approach when I joined the Phantom Club (The Ghost Who Walks for those still in their diapers) when I was 12 years old to get my Phantom Skull ring!
BC
On 17.02.2012 07:45, Basil Chupin wrote:
"Continued". Over what period? A week, a month, 10 years?
I applied after a year, So this might work out as suggestion for future members(?)
On the other hand, the most seen privilege of the membership is the @opensuse.org address, which should be enabled for marketing guys and gals in the beginning, due to marketing reasons (If you give your e-mail address on a presentation, joe.user@opensuse.org looks better then joeuser22948@gmail.com, right?)
Le 17/02/2012 10:27, Kim Leyendecker a écrit :
address on a presentation, joe.user@opensuse.org looks better then joeuser22948@gmail.com, right?)
who really care?
@suse.de could :-) - but more difficult to have :-)
jdd
jdd wrote:
Le 17/02/2012 10:27, Kim Leyendecker a écrit :
address on a presentation, joe.user@opensuse.org looks better then joeuser22948@gmail.com, right?)
who really care?
+1. I tend to use my opensuse.org alias on the opensuse lists only.
On 17.02.2012 10:18, jdd wrote:
Le 17/02/2012 10:27, Kim Leyendecker a écrit :
address on a presentation, joe.user@opensuse.org looks better then joeuser22948@gmail.com, right?)
who really care?
Well, it just looks more serious IMHO
@suse.de could :-) - but more difficult to have :-)
Yeah, but would be nice. Maybe SUSE will give the @suse.de domains to the project as "short adresses" and keep the @suse.com for the company only. Would be nice
jdd
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012, Kim Leyendecker wrote:
aybe SUSE will give the @suse.de domains to the project as "short adresses" and keep the @suse.com for the company only. Would be nice
Yes, it is the idea to use @suse.com for employees and have employees use @suse.com rather than country domains.
(Still it's going to take a while to have this fully in place, just check out this list.)
In any case, @suse.com and @suse.de are too close to not cause confusion, especially given historical usage, so I'm afraid this is not realistic. Plus .de is not quite as international as .org.
Gerald
On Sun, 2012-02-19 at 01:37 +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012, Kim Leyendecker wrote:
aybe SUSE will give the @suse.de domains to the project as "short adresses" and keep the @suse.com for the company only. Would be nice
Pardon me, but why would we want this? SUSE is a valued sponsor/partner of the openSUSE Project, but to use @suse.de for openSUSE Project-related stuff sends a misnomer to the public. openSUSE is a community-driven project and the community does not drive (although can influence) SUSE itself. We work *with* SUSE, but not *for* SUSE. Using @suse.de would imply that to the world that we are somehow employed by SUSE, and I haven't seen a paycheck from them yet. :-)
If we want some kind of "short domain" there is opensu.se which would be more closely reflective of our community and just 2 characters longer than suse.de. But I also fail to see any need for that. Is "opensuse.org" really that tedious?
Bryen
Yes, it is the idea to use @suse.com for employees and have employees use @suse.com rather than country domains.
(Still it's going to take a while to have this fully in place, just check out this list.)
In any case, @suse.com and @suse.de are too close to not cause confusion, especially given historical usage, so I'm afraid this is not realistic. Plus .de is not quite as international as .org.
Gerald
Dr. Gerald Pfeifer gp@suse.com || SUSE || Director Product Management
On 19.02.2012 02:04, Bryen M Yunashko wrote:
On Sun, 2012-02-19 at 01:37 +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012, Kim Leyendecker wrote:
aybe SUSE will give the @suse.de domains to the project as "short adresses" and keep the @suse.com for the company only. Would be nice
Pardon me, but why would we want this? SUSE is a valued sponsor/partner of the openSUSE Project, but to use @suse.de for openSUSE Project-related stuff sends a misnomer to the public. openSUSE is a community-driven project and the community does not drive (although can influence) SUSE itself. We work *with* SUSE, but not *for* SUSE. Using @suse.de would imply that to the world that we are somehow employed by SUSE, and I haven't seen a paycheck from them yet. :-)
Right from the standpoint that suse.de belongs to SUSE. My intention was, that SUSE gives the domain to the project, Maybe for foundation?
If we want some kind of "short domain" there is opensu.se which would be more closely reflective of our community and just 2 characters longer than suse.de. But I also fail to see any need for that. Is "opensuse.org" really that tedious?
No, not really, I only thought about a shorter adress for those who want it.
Anyway, it's getting very off-topic here, could we all agree to discuss it somewhere else, if needed?
have a lot of fun...
--kdl
Bryen
Yes, it is the idea to use @suse.com for employees and have employees use @suse.com rather than country domains.
(Still it's going to take a while to have this fully in place, just check out this list.)
In any case, @suse.com and @suse.de are too close to not cause confusion, especially given historical usage, so I'm afraid this is not realistic. Plus .de is not quite as international as .org.
Gerald
Dr. Gerald Pfeifer gp@suse.com || SUSE || Director Product Management
On Friday, February 17, 2012 10:55:53 AM Kim Leyendecker wrote:
On 17.02.2012 10:18, jdd wrote:
Le 17/02/2012 10:27, Kim Leyendecker a écrit :
address on a presentation, joe.user@opensuse.org looks better then joeuser22948@gmail.com, right?)
who really care?
Well, it just looks more serious IMHO
@suse.de could :-) - but more difficult to have :-)
Yeah, but would be nice. Maybe SUSE will give the @suse.de domains to the project as "short adresses" and keep the @suse.com for the company only. Would be nice
jdd
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
Sorry to say so but email domain is completely off-topic
If we would want to look for short domain name we could go for oS.org or oS.com or oS.net all available to acquire them. :-D
Obviously, it is a joke.
Generally good, some questions of clarification below:
On Thu, 2012-02-16 at 12:20 -0500, Robert Schweikert wrote:
Previously we discussed a proposal (http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-project/2012-01/msg00381.html) about 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 http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-project/2012-02/msg00064.html, 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 project meeting.
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.
Proposal:
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?
I'm generally fine with that. Just want to see it clarified that contribution is definitely not going to be part of renewal criteria.
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.
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..."
to:
"...a member of the membership committee may make an attempt to contact the member..."
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 universally recognized.
Honorary members retain their @opensuse e-mail address. However, 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. But if you have become an honorary member, proof of new contribution since last membership-expiration is required (referring to the 'resuming contributions' part.)
=====
In conjunction with this proposal, I propose that we implement infrastructure such that initial contribution verification is simplified and ongoing contribution recognition is possible, see FATE 313229 https://features.opensuse.org/313229. This infrastructure would eliminate the need for contributing members to visit a web page to mark their contributions and membership "renewal" would take place automatically. In addition this infrastructure will reduce the tedious work the membership team completes today and thus will improve the processing speed of new membership applications.
This proposal also requires the implementation of some basic infrastructure, or will put a good chunk of work onto the membership committee.
Last but not least, please keep in mind that this is about contributions. Yes, voting is effected, but should not be the center of the discussion. Basically it is expected that members are interested in voting. If a large percentage of members do not vote this, in and of itself sends a clear message that there's something going on with the project. Thus, we do not need to discuss the "what if I don't want to vote..." or "voting should be mandatory..." arguments we have heard previously.
Isn't this kind of the problem that sparked the discussion in the first place? What is the definition of "significant percentage?" Last election had 218 votes, which is less than 50%. We presume that a majority of the other ~300 non-votes were folks who no longer actively participate (though that's not the case in *every* instance.)
Non-votes are clearly a significant percentage. Interesting to note, the previous election garnered 220 votes. And we've not had any major votes (even non-Board polls) that achieved a significant majority in recent times.
By your definition here of "significant vote percentage", this proposal is guaranteed not to pass regardless of whether it has merit or is amply supported by most of the active community members.
Bryen M Yunashko openSUSE Project
Later, Robert
-- Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU SUSE-IBM Software Integration Center LINUX Tech Lead rjschwei@suse.com rschweik@ca.ibm.com 781-464-8147
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:10:32 -0600, Bryen M Yunashko wrote:
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.
"Emeritus" is a commonly recognised term that might be appropriate here.
Jim
On 02/16/2012 05:10 PM, Bryen M Yunashko wrote:
Generally good, some questions of clarification below:
On Thu, 2012-02-16 at 12:20 -0500, Robert Schweikert wrote:
Previously we discussed a proposal (http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-project/2012-01/msg00381.html) about 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 http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-project/2012-02/msg00064.html, 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 project meeting.
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.
Proposal:
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 as follows:
- contributor - member - honorary member (or emeritus)
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 spread out.
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..."
to:
"...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 universally recognized.
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 tiered level.
Honorary members retain their @opensuse e-mail address. However, 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 ;)
Later, Robert
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:50:31 -0500, Robert Schweikert wrote:
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.
I'm kinda wondering if maybe the two being intermingled like this isn't problematic on some level.
Contributions should be recognized, certainly. But a recognized contributor perhaps is not something that one should be responsible for approaching a membership board saying "See what I've done?" but rather a third party nomination of some sort.
Being involved in project governance, though, is (perhaps) a different story, because that's something that people might elect to do. Indeed, volunteering to be involved in project governance in and of itself *might* be seen as a contribution in its own merit.
Perhaps what we should be looking at is the various roles in the project and how they relate to the project as a whole. If we do that, then the discussion of project governance becomes just about another role in the project; how one gets involved in project governance then becomes a discussion more along the lines of how one would have patches accepted into the codebase rather than a "contribution merit" discussion (which seems to derail the discussion).
Jim
On 02/16/2012 06:03 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:50:31 -0500, Robert Schweikert wrote:
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.
I'm kinda wondering if maybe the two being intermingled like this isn't problematic on some level.
It is or would be easier to express what we are after.
Contributions should be recognized, certainly. But a recognized contributor perhaps is not something that one should be responsible for approaching a membership board saying "See what I've done?" but rather a third party nomination of some sort.
Being involved in project governance, though, is (perhaps) a different story, because that's something that people might elect to do. Indeed, volunteering to be involved in project governance in and of itself *might* be seen as a contribution in its own merit.
Being involved in project governance is definitely a contribution, at least in my book, and requires more patience that toiling away on technical items. However, our community is based around a technical "product" and I feel strongly that those involved in governance of the project should contribute to the technical content of the project or the promotion of our project. Just being involved in the governance is, in my opinion insufficient.
Perhaps what we should be looking at is the various roles in the project and how they relate to the project as a whole. If we do that, then the discussion of project governance becomes just about another role in the project; how one gets involved in project governance then becomes a discussion more along the lines of how one would have patches accepted into the codebase rather than a "contribution merit" discussion (which seems to derail the discussion).
I think the governance roles are reasonably defined. However, within this definition there is nothing that strikes at the heart of the matter we are trying to resolve.
What do you do with those that are members but no longer contribute?
Robert
<snip>
Being involved in project governance, though, is (perhaps) a different story, because that's something that people might elect to do. Indeed, volunteering to be involved in project governance in and of itself *might* be seen as a contribution in its own merit.
Being involved in project governance is definitely a contribution, at least in my book, and requires more patience that toiling away on technical items. However, our community is based around a technical "product" and I feel strongly that those involved in governance of the project should contribute to the technical content of the project or the promotion of our project. Just being involved in the governance is, in my opinion insufficient.
I don't totally agree with you... many people come from different backgrounds and have different of expertise, the wisest to me is to that the project on a natural way makes those people feel good on the areas they like. Writing a good tutorial is as important as having a strong systemd implementation. Having well conceived artwork is as important as having good PR. Forum/IRC support is as important as governance...
This to say... contributions in several forms and supports have their value. It's up to the community to recognize that value and reward people. For example, a forum helper that hangs around, helps people, follows the guiding principles is as worth of membership as a packager, designer or board member (at least this silly little world of mine).
I'm not really convinced that everyone is placing the "community" in first place.
Perhaps what we should be looking at is the various roles in the project and how they relate to the project as a whole. If we do that, then the discussion of project governance becomes just about another role in the project; how one gets involved in project governance then becomes a discussion more along the lines of how one would have patches accepted into the codebase rather than a "contribution merit" discussion (which seems to derail the discussion).
What do you do with those that are members but no longer contribute?
Honestly? Something like:
- A place in Hall of Fame - His username in infra-structure (ex: email address, this would prevent the name to be assigned in the future and that the wrong people are contacted or can somehow be identified as previous owners); - His user page on the wiki (so that he can keep a list of updated contacts if he wishes, helpful to get in touch if someone needs info regarding past contributions, ex: packaging, patching) - A very warm thank you and our recognition.
Of course you can disable emails (I don't see a problem with an alias), but at least prevent the user to be taken in the future... and everything else you can think of that is cool and encourages people to contribute :)
On 17.02.2012 02:07, Nelson Marques wrote:
Honestly? Something like:
- A place in Hall of Fame
- His username in infra-structure (ex: email address, this would
prevent the name to be assigned in the future and that the wrong people are contacted or can somehow be identified as previous owners);
- His user page on the wiki (so that he can keep a list of updated
contacts if he wishes, helpful to get in touch if someone needs info regarding past contributions, ex: packaging, patching)
- A very warm thank you and our recognition.
Of course you can disable emails (I don't see a problem with an alias), but at least prevent the user to be taken in the future... and everything else you can think of that is cool and encourages people to contribute :)
Yeah, such a "Hall of fame" would be very cool. indeed.
Maybe the membership officials want to start such a thing?
On 2012-02-17 01:07:40 (+0000), Nelson Marques nmo.marques@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
Being involved in project governance, though, is (perhaps) a different story, because that's something that people might elect to do. Indeed, volunteering to be involved in project governance in and of itself *might* be seen as a contribution in its own merit.
Being involved in project governance is definitely a contribution, at least in my book, and requires more patience that toiling away on technical items. However, our community is based around a technical "product" and I feel strongly that those involved in governance of the project should contribute to the technical content of the project or the promotion of our project. Just being involved in the governance is, in my opinion insufficient.
I don't totally agree with you... many people come from different backgrounds and have different of expertise, the wisest to me is to that the project on a natural way makes those people feel good on the areas they like. Writing a good tutorial is as important as having a strong systemd implementation. Having well conceived artwork is as important as having good PR. Forum/IRC support is as important as governance...
Absolutely. It's probably only about what is meant with "technical" :)
But, indeed, "non-technical" is definitely what we lack most today, by a long shot, at least IMNSHO.
This to say... contributions in several forms and supports have their value. It's up to the community to recognize that value and reward people. For example, a forum helper that hangs around, helps people, follows the guiding principles is as worth of membership as a packager, designer or board member (at least this silly little world of mine).
Totally agree.
I'm not really convinced that everyone is placing the "community" in first place.
+111111111
Definitely, many do not, and at some point we have to find out whether a majority actually wants an open source project and community, or just want to hack on an island all by themselves.
Perhaps what we should be looking at is the various roles in the project and how they relate to the project as a whole. If we do that, then the discussion of project governance becomes just about another role in the project; how one gets involved in project governance then becomes a discussion more along the lines of how one would have patches accepted into the codebase rather than a "contribution merit" discussion (which seems to derail the discussion).
What do you do with those that are members but no longer contribute?
Honestly? Something like:
- A place in Hall of Fame
- His username in infra-structure (ex: email address, this would
prevent the name to be assigned in the future and that the wrong people are contacted or can somehow be identified as previous owners);
- His user page on the wiki (so that he can keep a list of updated
contacts if he wishes, helpful to get in touch if someone needs info regarding past contributions, ex: packaging, patching)
- A very warm thank you and our recognition.
Yep, common sense :)
cheers
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 19:50:57 -0500, Robert Schweikert wrote:
On 02/16/2012 06:03 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:50:31 -0500, Robert Schweikert wrote:
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.
I'm kinda wondering if maybe the two being intermingled like this isn't problematic on some level.
It is or would be easier to express what we are after.
Maybe that's where we should be starting, then. :)
Being involved in project governance is definitely a contribution, at least in my book, and requires more patience that toiling away on technical items. However, our community is based around a technical "product" and I feel strongly that those involved in governance of the project should contribute to the technical content of the project or the promotion of our project. Just being involved in the governance is, in my opinion insufficient.
To some degree, I agree with Nelson's take on this - while certainly those involved in governance should have a stake beyond governance itself, at the same time, when one looks at how projects are managed, the project manager may or may not have a direct stake in the outcome of the project (beyond the project's success or failure).
(As an aside - calling us the "openSUSE project" is in itself something of a misnomer - a "project" is something that has a defined beginning and end, whereas what we "do" here is an ongoing task, continually improving the openSUSE product.)
If we step back from the discussion of what makes someone a 'member', perhaps the thing to look at is who the stakeholders in openSUSE are. There may be some overlap here (actually, there's guaranteed to be overlap), but I see the stakeholders as people like:
* Developers * Users * Community Leaders * SUSE * Testers * Ambassadors * Those who manage the websites, wiki, etc. * Marketing * The Board
Of course this list isn't comprehensive.
But from such a list, then what can be identified is what contribution those in each role make, and from there determine which contributions constitute an ongoing commitment to openSUSE. As a broad example, is the mere act of installing openSUSE enough of a commitment to openSUSE? Probably not. But someone who takes the time to install every milestone and test it, reporting issues they run into in order to make openSUSE better - that arguably demonstrates a commitment to openSUSE that's beyond that of a user who just installs and uses the distribution.
Perhaps what we should be looking at is the various roles in the project and how they relate to the project as a whole. If we do that, then the discussion of project governance becomes just about another role in the project; how one gets involved in project governance then becomes a discussion more along the lines of how one would have patches accepted into the codebase rather than a "contribution merit" discussion (which seems to derail the discussion).
I think the governance roles are reasonably defined. However, within this definition there is nothing that strikes at the heart of the matter we are trying to resolve.
What do you do with those that are members but no longer contribute?
I think that's something we figure out once we figure out what constitutes a contribution. If we don't know what constitutes a contribution, then it's hard to define what to do with inactive members (since we haven't defined what constitutes 'activity').
It also is important, though, for the definition of 'activity' to be flexible enough to allow things to be added that hadn't been previously thought of.
Jim
Le 17/02/2012 22:15, Jim Henderson a écrit :
It also is important, though, for the definition of 'activity' to be flexible enough to allow things to be added that hadn't been previously thought of.
the problem are of two kind:
* quantity. What is a great enough contribution? This can be approached, and the present system where we need four +1 makes a average by multiplying the people giving advice
* quality. It's quite easy to check *web* contributions, but for example I know the case of a friend of mine that spend his money for 10 years now representing SuSE then openSUSE on the meetings with lot of laptops and goodies and have seen his membership refused because he do not write easily and so is not web visible.
the second part is the most problematic
jdd
On Sat, 2012-02-18 at 00:29 +0100, jdd wrote:
Le 17/02/2012 22:15, Jim Henderson a écrit :
It also is important, though, for the definition of 'activity' to be flexible enough to allow things to be added that hadn't been previously thought of.
the problem are of two kind:
- quantity. What is a great enough contribution? This can be
approached, and the present system where we need four +1 makes a average by multiplying the people giving advice
- quality. It's quite easy to check *web* contributions, but for
example I know the case of a friend of mine that spend his money for 10 years now representing SuSE then openSUSE on the meetings with lot of laptops and goodies and have seen his membership refused because he do not write easily and so is not web visible.
the second part is the most problematic
jdd
When I used to review membership applications, we encountered this problem occassionally where our usual places to look showed nothing. When that happened, we would try to find people who knew this person and ask for some verification. This most often happened for non-English-speaking people who worked with openSUSE but not visible in our usual places.
Other projects include in application forms an option to list someone who can vouch for you. We should include that option as well. In this case, I would suggest your friend to re-apply and mention you as a reference so the membership committee has a clue where to verify information.
However, I fear we are slipping again in this overall thread. The thread's intent isn't about defining contributions. If we feel the current definition of contributor is questionable, we should create a new thread focused directly on that substance. This thread is about resolving what to do about members who were already identified and approved as contributors but no longer participate in any visible way for an extended period of time.
These are two separate, but valid, issues and should be given their own threads so things don't become convoluted in discussion.
Bryen M Yunashko openSUSE Project
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 17:40:52 -0600, Bryen M Yunashko wrote:
However, I fear we are slipping again in this overall thread. The thread's intent isn't about defining contributions. If we feel the current definition of contributor is questionable, we should create a new thread focused directly on that substance. This thread is about resolving what to do about members who were already identified and approved as contributors but no longer participate in any visible way for an extended period of time.
I think, though, that in order to effectively define inactivity (which is what you seem to be saying this discussion is about), activity has to be defined pretty clearly. Otherwise we're talking about the absence of something that's not well defined.
Jim
* Jim Henderson hendersj@gmail.com [02-18-12 13:45]:
I think, though, that in order to effectively define inactivity (which is what you seem to be saying this discussion is about), activity has to be defined pretty clearly. Otherwise we're talking about the absence of something that's not well defined.
<about *voting*>
yes, and voting should be an indication of *activity* but not be defined as a *requirement* of activity.
no, I'm not hung up on voting but there are those vocally against and it *should* not be a *requirement*, and I agree.
Le 18/02/2012 20:50, Patrick Shanahan a écrit :
yes, and voting should be an indication of *activity* but not be defined as a *requirement* of activity.
no, I'm not hung up on voting but there are those vocally against and it *should* not be a *requirement*, and I agree.
yes. say, we have to find an automated way to know if a member is still active.
Can we agree on some simple things that should be sufficient (not mandatory)
A member (alerady member that is) is active if in two years:
* he is voting at least once * he is writing on an openSUSE mailing list at least ten times * he is writing on openSUSE forum more than ten posts * he is connecting ten time on IRC (is this trackable?)
add what you think about the same...
for all others, a manual action is necessary
jdd
On Sábado, 18 de febrero de 2012 23:33:29 jdd escribió:
Le 18/02/2012 20:50, Patrick Shanahan a écrit :
yes, and voting should be an indication of *activity* but not be defined as a *requirement* of activity.
no, I'm not hung up on voting but there are those vocally against and it *should* not be a *requirement*, and I agree.
yes. say, we have to find an automated way to know if a member is still active.
Can we agree on some simple things that should be sufficient (not mandatory)
A member (alerady member that is) is active if in two years:
- he is voting at least once
- he is writing on an openSUSE mailing list at least ten times
- he is writing on openSUSE forum more than ten posts
- he is connecting ten time on IRC (is this trackable?)
(s)he is writing a HowTo (s)he is reparing some Wiki pages (s)he is packaging (s)he is uploading some presentations (s)he .......
add what you think about the same...
for all others, a manual action is necessary
jdd
There is a lot tasks we should promote to achieve. And maybe we can increase some input to different very needy areas from the project.
Reards,
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 14:50:02 -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
- Jim Henderson hendersj@gmail.com
[02-18-12 13:45]:
I think, though, that in order to effectively define inactivity (which is what you seem to be saying this discussion is about), activity has to be defined pretty clearly. Otherwise we're talking about the absence of something that's not well defined.
<about *voting*>
yes, and voting should be an indication of *activity* but not be defined as a *requirement* of activity.
no, I'm not hung up on voting but there are those vocally against and it *should* not be a *requirement*, and I agree.
I'm not talking about voting, I'm talking about what defines a "member".
Jim
* Jim Henderson hendersj@gmail.com [02-18-12 20:05]:
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 14:50:02 -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
- Jim Henderson hendersj@gmail.com
[02-18-12 13:45]:
I think, though, that in order to effectively define inactivity (which is what you seem to be saying this discussion is about), activity has to be defined pretty clearly. Otherwise we're talking about the absence of something that's not well defined.
<about *voting*>
yes, and voting should be an indication of *activity* but not be defined as a *requirement* of activity.
no, I'm not hung up on voting but there are those vocally against and it *should* not be a *requirement*, and I agree.
I'm not talking about voting, I'm talking about what defines a "member".
Yes you are and I am. Defining a "member" status to be more precise and that must not be that the member votes. He has that privilege but it is not a *requirement* of him retaining his status as a "member", ie: he does not have to vote and not voting does not deprive him of his status as a member.
On Viernes, 17 de febrero de 2012 17:40:52 Bryen M Yunashko escribió:
On Sat, 2012-02-18 at 00:29 +0100, jdd wrote:
Le 17/02/2012 22:15, Jim Henderson a écrit :
It also is important, though, for the definition of 'activity' to be flexible enough to allow things to be added that hadn't been previously thought of.
the problem are of two kind:
- quantity. What is a great enough contribution? This can be
approached, and the present system where we need four +1 makes a average by multiplying the people giving advice
As far as I watch we are not able to quantify other people contributions except by putting a counter for each task achieved (just on the web). Sadly, It almost no possible way to quantify contributions outside the project's web (english version).
- quality. It's quite easy to check *web* contributions, but for
example I know the case of a friend of mine that spend his money for 10 years now representing SuSE then openSUSE on the meetings with lot of laptops and goodies and have seen his membership refused because he do not write easily and so is not web visible.
the second part is the most problematic
This is quite problematic. If you are the only one on a region promoting the project and having language barrier disregards you are requesting membership or member.
jdd
When I used to review membership applications, we encountered this problem occassionally where our usual places to look showed nothing. When that happened, we would try to find people who knew this person and ask for some verification. This most often happened for non-English-speaking people who worked with openSUSE but not visible in our usual places.
Other projects include in application forms an option to list someone who can vouch for you. We should include that option as well. In this case, I would suggest your friend to re-apply and mention you as a reference so the membership committee has a clue where to verify information.
This is not easy in all cases. There is some people region isolated enough. We do not know them or having an actual mechanism to verify how much they are doing. (including language barriers) . Should the community ignore them?
However, I fear we are slipping again in this overall thread. The thread's intent isn't about defining contributions. If we feel the current definition of contributor is questionable, we should create a new thread focused directly on that substance. This thread is about resolving what to do about members who were already identified and approved as contributors but no longer participate in any visible way for an extended period of time.
I would not like to hijack this thread just making you aware of this scenario.
These are two separate, but valid, issues and should be given their own threads so things don't become convoluted in discussion.
Bryen M Yunashko openSUSE Project
Regards,
Ricardo Chung | Panama Linux Ambassador & openSUSE Projects
openSUSE 12.1 | KDE 4.7.2 | KMail 4.7.2 with no issues
- quality. It's quite easy to check *web* contributions, but for example I
know the case of a friend of mine that spend his money for 10 years now representing SuSE then openSUSE on the meetings with lot of laptops and goodies and have seen his membership refused because he do not write easily and so is not web visible.
I'm willing to give 250.000€'s from my own pocket and in return I want a seat on the board so I can stop this non-sense, and I am really willing to go that way :)
Le 18/02/2012 21:20, Nelson Marques a écrit :
- quality. It's quite easy to check *web* contributions, but for example I
know the case of a friend of mine that spend his money for 10 years now representing SuSE then openSUSE on the meetings with lot of laptops and goodies and have seen his membership refused because he do not write easily and so is not web visible.
I'm willing to give 250.000€'s from my own pocket and in return I want a seat on the board so I can stop this non-sense, and I am really willing to go that way :)
unclear :-(
jdd
On Thu, 2012-02-16 at 17:50 -0500, Robert Schweikert wrote:
ways, please focus on the topic at hand, avoid rants, and be kind.
Proposal:
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?
The text of your proposal states:
"Submission of the form results in automatic membership "renewal" until the next even number anniversary of the member."
If submission of renewal form results in automatic renewal then that implies that verification of continued contribution is bypassed. That is what I was seeking clarification on.
It is all about contribution, that's in the end why we have a contribution criteria to become a member in the first place.
And that is not clearly emphasized in the wording of this proposal. I may be getting into semantics here, but the automated renewal section does imply no continued contribution is necessary.
Let me propose this change in wording from:
"...a member of the membership committee will make an attempt to contact the member..."
to:
"...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.....
Yes I did. :-) And I still stand by that point. But I also don't feel strongly about making it a requirement to be imposed upon the membership committee, but a "hoped-for" attitude that they (along with the rest of the community) will consciously engage in an effort to keep our community in existence and growing. It's the wording I was concerned with, not the intention. I am only asking for a single word change "will" to "may." :-)
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.
Ok so somehow I missed this part. If I read this clearly now, if someone were to check off some boxes (truthfully or not) and then click submit, their membership would be automatically renewed. In other words, we renew on an honor system. I guess I could be okay with that.
Does this same automated process exist for the honorary members?
Based on your comments I am not sure we are looking at the same text ;)
No worries. We'll get there eventually. All part of the deliberation process when looking at wordings of a proposal. :-)
Later, Robert
-- Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU SUSE-IBM Software Integration Center LINUX Tech Lead rjschwei@suse.com rschweik@ca.ibm.com 781-464-8147
On 02/16/2012 07:20 PM, Bryen M Yunashko wrote:
On Thu, 2012-02-16 at 17:50 -0500, Robert Schweikert wrote:
ways, please focus on the topic at hand, avoid rants, and be kind.
Proposal:
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?
The text of your proposal states:
"Submission of the form results in automatic membership "renewal" until the next even number anniversary of the member."
If submission of renewal form results in automatic renewal then that implies that verification of continued contribution is bypassed. That is what I was seeking clarification on.
Yes, it is. But it is still verifiable if a member of the membership committee chooses to do so. Please consider that in addition to the proposal on the membership I suggested a system, and filed a FATE entry, that would support an "automated renewal" process based on contribution recognition. Therefore, the automatic renewal based on a web form submission backed by the honor system would not degrade the current situation and could be considered temporary.
It is all about contribution, that's in the end why we have a contribution criteria to become a member in the first place.
And that is not clearly emphasized in the wording of this proposal. I may be getting into semantics here, but the automated renewal section does imply no continued contribution is necessary.
Well, lets just make the assumption that those who once contributed to the project or currently contribute have the best interest of the project in mind and can set their ego aside when needed. If people no longer contribute for whatever reason why would they go to the form and submit it?
Let me propose this change in wording from:
"...a member of the membership committee will make an attempt to contact the member..."
to:
"...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.....
Yes I did. :-) And I still stand by that point. But I also don't feel strongly about making it a requirement to be imposed upon the membership committee, but a "hoped-for" attitude that they (along with the rest of the community) will consciously engage in an effort to keep our community in existence and growing. It's the wording I was concerned with, not the intention. I am only asking for a single word change "will" to "may." :-)
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.
Ok so somehow I missed this part. If I read this clearly now, if someone were to check off some boxes (truthfully or not) and then click submit, their membership would be automatically renewed. In other words, we renew on an honor system. I guess I could be okay with that.
Yes, honor system should really work for us. And the submitted form information is available and is verifiable. I just do not see the need for the membership team to have to verify the same member's contributions every two years. Then again, hopefully an automated system can be implemented that eliminates all of this to begin with.
Does this same automated process exist for the honorary members?
No, honorable members do nothing, by definition. They are honorable members because they have contributed in the past but are no longer actively involved in the project.
Robert
Ok, you have clarified much of what I had confusions on, and I thank you for that. One more point below...
On Thu, 2012-02-16 at 20:04 -0500, Robert Schweikert wrote:
Does this same automated process exist for the honorary members?
No, honorable members do nothing, by definition. They are honorable members because they have contributed in the past but are no longer actively involved in the project.
I probably worded my question wrongly here. What I meant to ask was, do honoary members also get to use the automated renewal form (with inherent honor system) or do they have to start the process all over again as a fresh new member, requiring the membership committee to vet their contributions again, if they choose to renew their membership somewhere down the road?
Bryen M Yunashko openSUSE Project
I'm a bit puzzled by this discussion, as it seems to focus on the wrong side of matters, i.e. how to move people away from the project, not on how to win people to contribute to openSUSE.
From my point of view the rules should be very simple:
* Everybody who identifies with the guiding principles of openSUSE is welcome to join the project. * People showing sustained contribution become official members of openSUSE. * If a member doesn't vote for let's say two years the member becomes an inactive member. * The only difference of an inactive to an active member is that inactive members don't have voting rights * An inactive member can become an active member again by an informal request to the membership officials team
I don't see the need to introduce additional mechanisms or the need for people to repeatedly justify that they earn member status. Remember, we want to be an inclusive community. So let's just keep things simple.
If you really see a need to clean the number of people eligible to vote from inactive members, I would suggest to go with a simple process like described above.
But on the other hand it also would be worth to think, if this is needed at all. The only case where it's really relevant is if a quorum needs to be met for a vote. The only quorum amongst members we have is for a forced reelection of the board. So this might be more difficult, if there are a lot of inactive members. This might be or or not be worth the effort to "inactivate" members.
But in any case, please keep it simple and inviting.
* Cornelius Schumacher cschum@suse.de [02-17-12 19:58]:
I'm a bit puzzled by this discussion, as it seems to focus on the wrong side of matters, i.e. how to move people away from the project, not on how to win people to contribute to openSUSE.
From my point of view the rules should be very simple:
- Everybody who identifies with the guiding principles of openSUSE is welcome
to join the project.
- People showing sustained contribution become official members of openSUSE.
- If a member doesn't vote for let's say two years the member becomes an
inactive member.
- The only difference of an inactive to an active member is that inactive
members don't have voting rights
- An inactive member can become an active member again by an informal request
to the membership officials team
I don't see the need to introduce additional mechanisms or the need for people to repeatedly justify that they earn member status. Remember, we want to be an inclusive community. So let's just keep things simple.
If you really see a need to clean the number of people eligible to vote from inactive members, I would suggest to go with a simple process like described above.
But on the other hand it also would be worth to think, if this is needed at all. The only case where it's really relevant is if a quorum needs to be met for a vote. The only quorum amongst members we have is for a forced reelection of the board. So this might be more difficult, if there are a lot of inactive members. This might be or or not be worth the effort to "inactivate" members.
But in any case, please keep it simple and inviting.
I agree with this with one exception, that voting is not a requirement to be an "active" member. Activity and ability to contact is necessary. You are making it mandatory for members to vote and that was not in the original definition, ie: identifies with the guiding principles and contributes.
On 02/18/2012 02:19 AM, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
- Cornelius Schumacher cschum@suse.de [02-17-12 19:58]:
- If a member doesn't vote for let's say two years the member becomes an
inactive member.
But on the other hand it also would be worth to think, if this is needed at all. The only case where it's really relevant is if a quorum needs to be met for a vote. The only quorum amongst members we have is for a forced reelection of the board. So this might be more difficult, if there are a lot of inactive members. This might be or or not be worth the effort to "inactivate" members.
But in any case, please keep it simple and inviting.
I agree with this with one exception, that voting is not a requirement to be an "active" member. Activity and ability to contact is necessary. You are making it mandatory for members to vote and that was not in the original definition, ie: identifies with the guiding principles and contributes.
I agree with Patrick's point voting cannot be a must. Think this way if you don't vote in the elections do you loose your citizenship no. One has a right to vote but to vote or not to vote can not be basis of membership
Togan
Le 18/02/2012 10:50, Togan Muftuoglu a écrit : .> I agree with Patrick's point voting cannot be a must. Think this way if
you don't vote in the elections do you loose your citizenship no. One has a right to vote but to vote or not to vote can not be basis of membership
could we simply agree on a simple form that a member have to fill once on a while (each year, why not) saying
* I want to stay *active* openSUSE member
that's all?
this could simply filter out people that do not have anymore interest on openSUSE.
remain to see if any previous member can refill the form at any time and be accepted or if we ask him some more contribution (but if we do not ask present member to make continuous contribution, why ask more for previous members)
jdd
On 2012-02-18 10:50:01 (+0100), Togan Muftuoglu toganm@opensuse.org wrote:
On 02/18/2012 02:19 AM, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
- Cornelius Schumacher cschum@suse.de [02-17-12 19:58]:
- If a member doesn't vote for let's say two years the member becomes an
inactive member.
But on the other hand it also would be worth to think, if this is needed at all. The only case where it's really relevant is if a quorum needs to be met for a vote. The only quorum amongst members we have is for a forced reelection of the board. So this might be more difficult, if there are a lot of inactive members. This might be or or not be worth the effort to "inactivate" members.
But in any case, please keep it simple and inviting.
I agree with this with one exception, that voting is not a requirement to be an "active" member. Activity and ability to contact is necessary. You are making it mandatory for members to vote and that was not in the original definition, ie: identifies with the guiding principles and contributes.
Yes, but until we come up with a better idea, Cornelius' proposal is the simplest by far, and simple is definitely good.
I agree with Patrick's point voting cannot be a must. Think this way if you don't vote in the elections do you loose your citizenship no. One has a right to vote but to vote or not to vote can not be basis of membership
Could someone please give me a few reasons on why they do not want to vote ?
I have heard this complaint from a handful of people up to now, but no one gave a single good reason for that, except comparisons with national citizenship or some interpretation of what democracy should be.
Could we please not turn it into a philisophical debate (yes, it's a debate, it is simply not that clear cut as you believe it is, but I made that point on another thread already) or analogies that are questionable at best.
So please, enlighten me, I want to understand:
* why do you _not_ want to vote on the opensuse board elections? * would a "none of the above" vote option be good enough for you? * would you also _not_ want to vote on a poll/referendum where we ask the members to decide on something? * if so, why ?
I really would like to find out whether we can accomodate whatever reasons exist against voting and keep a simple process rather than going into an extremely complicated and bureaucratic mess, simply because no one has ever explained why they don't want to vote in the first place.
cheers
Pascal Bleser wrote:
Could someone please give me a few reasons on why they do not want to vote ?
I have heard this complaint from a handful of people up to now, but no one gave a single good reason for that, except comparisons with national citizenship or some interpretation of what democracy should be.
Could we please not turn it into a philisophical debate (yes, it's a debate, it is simply not that clear cut as you believe it is, but I made that point on another thread already) or analogies that are questionable at best.
So please, enlighten me, I want to understand:
- why do you _not_ want to vote on the opensuse board elections?
- would a "none of the above" vote option be good enough for you?
It must be possible to enter a blank vote, yes. I mentioned this to "election-officials@opensuse.org" last year in December.
On 02/18/2012 01:02 PM, Pascal Bleser wrote:
- why do you _not_ want to vote on the opensuse board elections?
Simply because I don't want to. One does not need to know or understand the minute details to accept a fact.
- would a "none of the above" vote option be good enough for you?
Because this is same as casting an invalid ballot on purpose hence has no benefit other than forcing the person to vote one way or another
- would you also _not_ want to vote on a poll/referendum where we ask the members to decide on something?
- if so, why ?
I really would like to find out whether we can accomodate whatever reasons exist against voting and keep a simple process rather than going into an extremely complicated and bureaucratic mess, simply because no one has ever explained why they don't want to vote in the first place.
I wouldn't glue myself to the voting too much. In my point of view the key is how to keep people active and involved with the project, the name one names is not the definitive name.
Hence it would be interesting to know why those once contributed stopped doing so now.
Togan
On 02/17/2012 06:55 PM, Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
I'm a bit puzzled by this discussion, as it seems to focus on the wrong side of matters, i.e. how to move people away from the project, not on how to win people to contribute to openSUSE.
From my point of view the rules should be very simple:
- Everybody who identifies with the guiding principles of openSUSE is welcome
to join the project.
- People showing sustained contribution become official members of openSUSE.
- If a member doesn't vote for let's say two years the member becomes an
inactive member.
- The only difference of an inactive to an active member is that inactive
members don't have voting rights
- An inactive member can become an active member again by an informal request
to the membership officials team
I don't see the need to introduce additional mechanisms or the need for people to repeatedly justify that they earn member status. Remember, we want to be an inclusive community. So let's just keep things simple.
If you really see a need to clean the number of people eligible to vote from inactive members, I would suggest to go with a simple process like described above.
But on the other hand it also would be worth to think, if this is needed at all. The only case where it's really relevant is if a quorum needs to be met for a vote. The only quorum amongst members we have is for a forced reelection of the board. So this might be more difficult, if there are a lot of inactive members. This might be or or not be worth the effort to "inactivate" members.
But in any case, please keep it simple and inviting.
Cornelius is right. While Robert's new proposal is much better than the first, I still generally feel this is a solution in search of a problem.
We want to encourage participation and contributions, both in a technical sense and in governance. We want to recognize participation and contributions by offering membership in the community. No one wants to be told that "unless you do this, this and this, we're going to kick you out of the community." Some people might react badly to that.
While applying for membership may imply that people want to be involved in governance, perhaps they just want recognition from the community that they feel part of. Some genuinely feel that "politics is evil" and just want to make their contributions without bothering with project leadership. They should be allowed that right.
I'm not entirely certain how I feel about members who just want to be involved in governance without participating in the project in other ways. We have come together as a community around this technology project.
Mike McCallister openSUSE Ambassador
On Sat, 2012-02-18 at 08:10 -0600, Mike McCallister wrote:
On 02/17/2012 06:55 PM, Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
I'm a bit puzzled by this discussion, as it seems to focus on the wrong side of matters, i.e. how to move people away from the project, not on how to win people to contribute to openSUSE.
From my point of view the rules should be very simple:
- Everybody who identifies with the guiding principles of openSUSE is welcome
to join the project.
- People showing sustained contribution become official members of openSUSE.
- If a member doesn't vote for let's say two years the member becomes an
inactive member.
- The only difference of an inactive to an active member is that inactive
members don't have voting rights
- An inactive member can become an active member again by an informal request
to the membership officials team
I don't see the need to introduce additional mechanisms or the need for people to repeatedly justify that they earn member status. Remember, we want to be an inclusive community. So let's just keep things simple.
If you really see a need to clean the number of people eligible to vote from inactive members, I would suggest to go with a simple process like described above.
But on the other hand it also would be worth to think, if this is needed at all. The only case where it's really relevant is if a quorum needs to be met for a vote. The only quorum amongst members we have is for a forced reelection of the board. So this might be more difficult, if there are a lot of inactive members. This might be or or not be worth the effort to "inactivate" members.
But in any case, please keep it simple and inviting.
Cornelius is right. While Robert's new proposal is much better than the first, I still generally feel this is a solution in search of a problem.
We want to encourage participation and contributions, both in a technical sense and in governance. We want to recognize participation and contributions by offering membership in the community. No one wants to be told that "unless you do this, this and this, we're going to kick you out of the community." Some people might react badly to that.
While applying for membership may imply that people want to be involved in governance, perhaps they just want recognition from the community that they feel part of. Some genuinely feel that "politics is evil" and just want to make their contributions without bothering with project leadership. They should be allowed that right.
I'm not entirely certain how I feel about members who just want to be involved in governance without participating in the project in other ways. We have come together as a community around this technology project.
Mike McCallister openSUSE Ambassador
May I suggest we now move to a wiki page and directly collaborate on editing the proposed text? I also agree that Robert's proposal is much improved from the last thread. I also know that the wording could use some improvement, as evidenced by my myriad questions earlier in this thread asking for clarifications on some text.
That's not a reflection on Robert, mind you. I don't think there's any proposed rule (or such) that succeeds without some form of text collaboration, and discussing it only via email isn't going to go anywhere quite quickly.
Just my opinion.
Bryen M Yunashko openSUSE Project
On 18.02.2012 01:55, Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
I'm a bit puzzled by this discussion, as it seems to focus on the wrong side of matters, i.e. how to move people away from the project, not on how to win people to contribute to openSUSE.
From my point of view the rules should be very simple:
- Everybody who identifies with the guiding principles of openSUSE is welcome
to join the project.
- People showing sustained contribution become official members of openSUSE.
- If a member doesn't vote for let's say two years the member becomes an
inactive member.
- The only difference of an inactive to an active member is that inactive
members don't have voting rights
- An inactive member can become an active member again by an informal request
to the membership officials team
I don't see the need to introduce additional mechanisms or the need for people to repeatedly justify that they earn member status. Remember, we want to be an inclusive community. So let's just keep things simple.
If you really see a need to clean the number of people eligible to vote from inactive members, I would suggest to go with a simple process like described above.
But on the other hand it also would be worth to think, if this is needed at all. The only case where it's really relevant is if a quorum needs to be met for a vote. The only quorum amongst members we have is for a forced reelection of the board. So this might be more difficult, if there are a lot of inactive members. This might be or or not be worth the effort to "inactivate" members.
But in any case, please keep it simple and inviting.
+1 in all points Couldn't agree more!
On 02/17/2012 07:55 PM, Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
I'm a bit puzzled by this discussion, as it seems to focus on the wrong side of matters, i.e. how to move people away from the project, not on how to win people to contribute to openSUSE.
From my point of view the rules should be very simple:
- Everybody who identifies with the guiding principles of openSUSE is welcome
to join the project.
- People showing sustained contribution become official members of openSUSE.
- If a member doesn't vote for let's say two years the member becomes an
inactive member.
- The only difference of an inactive to an active member is that inactive
members don't have voting rights
- An inactive member can become an active member again by an informal request
to the membership officials team
I don't see the need to introduce additional mechanisms or the need for people to repeatedly justify that they earn member status. Remember, we want to be an inclusive community. So let's just keep things simple.
If you really see a need to clean the number of people eligible to vote from inactive members, I would suggest to go with a simple process like described above.
But on the other hand it also would be worth to think, if this is needed at all. The only case where it's really relevant is if a quorum needs to be met for a vote. The only quorum amongst members we have is for a forced reelection of the board. So this might be more difficult, if there are a lot of inactive members. This might be or or not be worth the effort to "inactivate" members.
But in any case, please keep it simple and inviting.
Yes, whatever we do needs to be reasonably straight forward and inviting. However, this approach ties sustained membership to voting only. In essence you are saying that once someone is a member we do not care about their contributions, we care only that they vote.
From my point of view membership should be about contribution first, everything else is second. You contribute and apply for membership and you earn the privilege of voting in project matters if accepted.
We have set up a "hurdle" of contributions to become a member, why would we not have the same expectation of someone who is a member?
Robert
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012, Robert Schweikert wrote:
We have set up a "hurdle" of contributions to become a member, why would we not have the same expectation of someone who is a member?
In my mind, this "hurdle" should follow some form of hysteresis, similar to thermostats.
To maintain membership past contributions should be considered as well (not exclusively, but as well).
As a first approximation, I like the idea of a simple action or signal of activity to retain membership once granted. I am not in favor of the idea of a panopticum.
Gerald
On Wed, 2012-02-29 at 23:19 +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012, Robert Schweikert wrote:
We have set up a "hurdle" of contributions to become a member, why would we not have the same expectation of someone who is a member?
In my mind, this "hurdle" should follow some form of hysteresis, similar to thermostats.
To maintain membership past contributions should be considered as well (not exclusively, but as well).
As a first approximation, I like the idea of a simple action or signal of activity to retain membership once granted. I am not in favor of the idea of a panopticum.
Gerald
Dr. Gerald Pfeifer gp@suse.com || SUSE || Director Product Management
Gerald just made a contribution as I had to go look up and learn what panopticon meant. :-)
Simplicity is the best solution and I think we have gone overboard in discussing what defines a contribution and what tracks a contribution. As I've said before, we keep the bar low in contribution determination and our numbers prove it. Robert's proposal includes an honor-system check mark box to indicate that you have continued to contribute. At the very least, even if you have "lied" and done no contributions since becoming a member, the check-box indicates you still have a vested interest in the Project.
And ultimately, it is people who have a vested interest that vote.
This proposal was intended to provide a sane resolution to accounting overabundance in our rosters. It has become anything but that and combines multiple issues in what is supposed to have been a singular issue and attempt at resolution.
Can we please stick to the intention and resolve that? I think my stripped-down version of the proposal in this thread can do that. And *then* if the very definition of contribution/contributor itself is truly in question, we can address that separately. Though I am unconvinced there is a real issue on that arena. This discussion has allowed a non-valid issue (imo) to overshadow a valid issue.
Bryen
I've been giving this some thought and it occurs to me that part of the problem here with our inability to move forward on this proposal is that we've somehow convoluted the intent. If you'll indulge me, bear with me s I present my thoughts.
Simplicity:
The proposal's intent is to address the question: "Should we move members who have not participated and are uncontactable for a certain period of time into some sort of inactive status?" It's a fair question that Robert ask, and one that deserves some consideration.
Cornelius rightfully points out that we need to keep this simple although I will say right here that any proposal that includes language requiring a member to vote in order to maintain active status will get a nay vote from me.
Processes:
A good portion of this proposal actually deals with processes and automation. I don't think this part should be in the proposal. Instead, such things should be presented directly to the membership team because they are the ones ultimately responsible for ensuring a sane and effective process.
In fact, a vote by the general membership on process/automation does not guarantee implementation. We don't *need* a vote on process/automation. We simply need someone to create it and whomever does, does not need a vote to tell him/her to create it. As the illustrious Mr. Henne says... "Just do it!"
We have processes all over the Project. Some work well, and some truly suck. But where have we ever had a general membership vote on process/automation? Why should the membership committee be the exception? They are the ones who decided to join the committee and do the work. It is up to them to decide whether the processes can be automated or streamlined and develop the requirements needed to make their jobs easier.
So let's take references to automation out of the proposal.
Contribution:
There's been a lot of discussion centering around what defines contribution. Yet, as far as I can recall, only one example was shown where a contributor may have been unfairly excluded from being a member. (The example from JDD.)
When I was first approached to be a member, I asked what are the standards? I was told, the bar is kept low. When I became a board member and reviewed membership applications, my fellow board members and I kept that in mind and also kept the bar low. I presume the membership committee also keeps the bar low.
To point out, we now have ~500 members in just a few years. As a comparison, I recently counted how many members are in GNOME Foundation. ~350. Some would argue that overall, GNOME folks are demonstrably more contributory than we are. Someone in one of these threads even pointed out the number of people who actually talk and participate in -Project ML discussions which doesn't come anywhere near the 500 members we have nor the ~200 members who have voted on anything.
This is evidence that entry into openSUSE membership is historically easy and frankly negates why we are spending so much time here trying to define minimal level of contributions. If anything, we should expect that the membership committee has a fair appeals process if an applicant feels they were not fairly considered before rejection, and that process should include an ultimate avenue to complain directly to the board for final resolution.
If you feel the overall definition of contribution in terms of membership qualification is unfair by the membership committee, then you have the right to take your concerns directly to the board. The membership committee is an outsourced function of the board and board has the responsibility to ensure fair review of membership qualifications.
Additionally, if you all feel the very definition of contributor needs a wholesale revision, then you can certainly address that in a new thread and ultimately in a community vote specifically on the question of contributor. I say this because the definition of contributor is the same whether you are a new applicant or renewal applicant and thus does not have a direct impact on the basic question inherent in Robert's proposal.
But the very low percentage of "unfair rejections" and the very high number of members we have tells me we really are beating a horse that doesn't deserve it.
Robert's proposal keeps it simple by only requiring an honor system for active membership renewal. That is, once again, a process question and thus I think can be removed from the proposal itself.
Conclusion:
The proposal to be ultimately put to a vote via Connect should have the following text, or similar thereof:
"Should active members who have not contributed for 2+ years and are uncontactable be reassigned to Member Emeritus status, thus retaining all basic membership benefits with the exception of voting on openSUSE Project matters?" - Yes - No
That's as simple as it can get and won't elicit convolution or confusion for those who will vote on this proposal. After all, its highly doubtful all 500 members have been reading the two threads on Robert's proposal. :-)
And Robert, for the remainder of your proposal, don't throw it out. Simply bring it before the membership committee. Nothing is invalid in your proposal and can/should be worked on regardless of the outcome of the proposal vote. And if an inactivity rule is approved by the Community, you simply incorporate that into your process re-tooling.
Bryen M Yunshko openSUSE Project
On Thu, 2012-02-16 at 12:20 -0500, Robert Schweikert wrote:
Previously we discussed a proposal (http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-project/2012-01/msg00381.html) about 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 http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-project/2012-02/msg00064.html, 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 project meeting.
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.
Proposal:
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.
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.
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.
Honorary members retain their @opensuse e-mail address. However, 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. =====
In conjunction with this proposal, I propose that we implement infrastructure such that initial contribution verification is simplified and ongoing contribution recognition is possible, see FATE 313229 https://features.opensuse.org/313229. This infrastructure would eliminate the need for contributing members to visit a web page to mark their contributions and membership "renewal" would take place automatically. In addition this infrastructure will reduce the tedious work the membership team completes today and thus will improve the processing speed of new membership applications.
This proposal also requires the implementation of some basic infrastructure, or will put a good chunk of work onto the membership committee.
Last but not least, please keep in mind that this is about contributions. Yes, voting is effected, but should not be the center of the discussion. Basically it is expected that members are interested in voting. If a large percentage of members do not vote this, in and of itself sends a clear message that there's something going on with the project. Thus, we do not need to discuss the "what if I don't want to vote..." or "voting should be mandatory..." arguments we have heard previously.
Later, Robert
-- Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU SUSE-IBM Software Integration Center LINUX Tech Lead rjschwei@suse.com rschweik@ca.ibm.com 781-464-8147
Le 19/02/2012 08:16, Bryen M Yunashko a écrit :
"Should active members who have not contributed for 2+ years and are uncontactable be reassigned to Member Emeritus status, thus retaining all basic membership benefits with the exception of voting on openSUSE Project matters?"
- Yes
- No
I think it's even simpler.
Having people not voting have no harm (for statistics, simply compare votes to the last vote, not to the hole member number), safe for the quorum thing.
So we need mostly to change the quorum definition: something like change the fixed % of members to a fixed % of the number of members participating on the last vote.
As this quorum is to protest against the board it's normal that the % is calculated on the people having voted for him.
jdd
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 08:35:50 +0100 jdd jdd@dodin.org wrote:
Having people not voting have no harm (for statistics, simply compare votes to the last vote, not to the hole member number), safe for the quorum thing.
Regarding voting:
Define voting by percent of people taking part in a poll (elections). Like more then 50% of votes wins.
We do that on all polls on a Connect, I don't think that openSUSE wide elections should be any diffrent.
That way you don't have to think how many members is active and compare records of previous polls (elections).
All we have to do is to: * make well known few places where are announced openSUSE project wide polls and elections, * tell people to watch any of those places, * make list of those that voted public, so that anyone can check anybody else, if needed; and * give option in any poll to cast neutral vote.
Those that ignore announcements are really not concerned with anything and have no moral right to jump in after the fact. It is of course possible to have some reasons vote, but as in any more serious elections,
For mail lists that is opensuse-announce list, for forums there is News&Announcements forum, for IRC can be used topic of #opensuse-project and #suse, build service can have announce added on right side, above Contact frame, and for all other there is http://news.opensuse.org/category/announcements/ .
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 18:45:39 -0600 "Rajko M." rmatov101@charter.net wrote:
It is of course possible to have some reasons vote, but as in any more serious elections,
I may finish sentence as well :)
It is of course possible to have some reasons not to vote, but just as in any more serious elections, it is voters responsibility to appear on poll location at certain time.
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012, Rajko M. wrote:
Those that ignore announcements are really not concerned with anything and have no moral right to jump in after the fact.
Not true for those off the Internet for medical reasons or vacation, or just being temporarily unavailable otherwise.
On a global openSUSE scale, we can ignore these cases, but using them to declare someone inactive or not entitled to raise an issue does not seem appropriate. (Don't get the wrong, after a proper election or voting the result counts and should not be questions constantly; what I am after here is the individual's situation and assessment.)
Gerald
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 16:47:04 +0100 (CET) Gerald Pfeifer gp@suse.com wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012, Rajko M. wrote:
Those that ignore announcements are really not concerned with anything and have no moral right to jump in after the fact.
Not true for those off the Internet for medical reasons or vacation, or just being temporarily unavailable otherwise.
I got in mind those that deliberately ignore, even post that to make clear that is not accidentally missed opportunity, and after that complain all over the place.
- Regards, Rajko
The proposal's intent is to address the question: "Should we move members who have not participated and are uncontactable for a certain period of time into some sort of inactive status?" It's a fair question that Robert ask, and one that deserves some consideration.
It is a fair question, no doubt. But it begs the question as to what constitutes "activity", and that hasn't really been defined. It's hard to discuss moving people to an 'inactive' status if 'active' isn't clearly defined.
Jim
On Feb 20, 12 18:58:05 +0000, Jim Henderson wrote:
The proposal's intent is to address the question: "Should we move members who have not participated and are uncontactable for a certain period of time into some sort of inactive status?" It's a fair question that Robert ask, and one that deserves some consideration.
It is a fair question, no doubt. But it begs the question as to what constitutes "activity", and that hasn't really been defined. It's hard to discuss moving people to an 'inactive' status if 'active' isn't clearly defined.
We could make passwords expire after say 2 years. Then those definitions become much easier, I'd say.
(assuming, we implement such expiration and timely reminders in an automated fashion, of course).
cheers, JW-
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 20:08:53 +0100, Juergen Weigert wrote:
On Feb 20, 12 18:58:05 +0000, Jim Henderson wrote:
The proposal's intent is to address the question: "Should we move members who have not participated and are uncontactable for a certain period of time into some sort of inactive status?" It's a fair question that Robert ask, and one that deserves some consideration.
It is a fair question, no doubt. But it begs the question as to what constitutes "activity", and that hasn't really been defined. It's hard to discuss moving people to an 'inactive' status if 'active' isn't clearly defined.
We could make passwords expire after say 2 years. Then those definitions become much easier, I'd say.
That doesn't answer the question, it more or less avoids the question.
Jim
On Mon, 2012-02-20 at 19:28 +0000, Jim Henderson wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 20:08:53 +0100, Juergen Weigert wrote:
On Feb 20, 12 18:58:05 +0000, Jim Henderson wrote:
The proposal's intent is to address the question: "Should we move members who have not participated and are uncontactable for a certain period of time into some sort of inactive status?" It's a fair question that Robert ask, and one that deserves some consideration.
It is a fair question, no doubt. But it begs the question as to what constitutes "activity", and that hasn't really been defined. It's hard to discuss moving people to an 'inactive' status if 'active' isn't clearly defined.
We could make passwords expire after say 2 years. Then those definitions become much easier, I'd say.
That doesn't answer the question, it more or less avoids the question.
Jim
And it assumes that passwords are only used by members, which currently isn't the case.
Back to Jim's question, Robert's proposal eliminates the need to define inactivity. It is to be based on an honor system. If you are contactable in some way, you will be reminded to fill out a form for membership update/renewal. In that form is some sort of check box where you state "Yes I have done something in the past 2 years."
Robert's proposal thus suggests we accept that checkmark on face value and automatically retain the membership status. Yes some people could abuse this privilege, but in the grand scheme of things, why would you care to retain your membership if you have walked away from the Project for so long? And the membership team could, at some point, do a random sampling to see if this honor system was abused in any systematic way.
What this really boils down to is simply we are sending a heads up to each member every two years asking "hey, do you still want to be an active member?" and if they say yes, so be it.
Therefore, everything essentially remains the same, and those who don't respond get moved to Emeritus status. What could be simpler than this?
Bryen
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:45:16 -0600, Bryen M Yunashko wrote:
Back to Jim's question, Robert's proposal eliminates the need to define inactivity. It is to be based on an honor system. If you are contactable in some way, you will be reminded to fill out a form for membership update/renewal. In that form is some sort of check box where you state "Yes I have done something in the past 2 years."
Robert's proposal thus suggests we accept that checkmark on face value and automatically retain the membership status. Yes some people could abuse this privilege, but in the grand scheme of things, why would you care to retain your membership if you have walked away from the Project for so long? And the membership team could, at some point, do a random sampling to see if this honor system was abused in any systematic way.
What this really boils down to is simply we are sending a heads up to each member every two years asking "hey, do you still want to be an active member?" and if they say yes, so be it.
Therefore, everything essentially remains the same, and those who don't respond get moved to Emeritus status. What could be simpler than this?
That makes sense to me, thanks for the clarification, Bryen.
Jim
Bryen M Yunashko wrote:
What this really boils down to is simply we are sending a heads up to each member every two years asking "hey, do you still want to be an active member?" and if they say yes, so be it.
Therefore, everything essentially remains the same, and those who don't respond get moved to Emeritus status. What could be simpler than this?
I like it. I think it might even be reasonable to do it every year.
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:45:16 -0600 Bryen M Yunashko suserocks@bryen.com wrote:
And it assumes that passwords are only used by members, which currently isn't the case.
List of accounts with expired passwords can be compared with list of members, and then you have list of members that did not touch infrastructure for say 3 months. From that point count whatever is voted as a grace period before staus is changed to Emeritus.
It doesn't ask for language skills, it doesn't ask about amount of contributions, it is asking to keep your password valid, which is really minimum requirement to show that you have any interest in openSUSE.
On Feb 20, 12 19:28:43 +0000, Jim Henderson wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 20:08:53 +0100, Juergen Weigert wrote:
On Feb 20, 12 18:58:05 +0000, Jim Henderson wrote:
The proposal's intent is to address the question: "Should we move members who have not participated and are uncontactable for a certain period of time into some sort of inactive status?" It's a fair question that Robert ask, and one that deserves some consideration.
It is a fair question, no doubt. But it begs the question as to what constitutes "activity", and that hasn't really been defined. It's hard to discuss moving people to an 'inactive' status if 'active' isn't clearly defined.
We could make passwords expire after say 2 years. Then those definitions become much easier, I'd say.
That doesn't answer the question, it more or less avoids the question.
I am dodging the questions for now, because I believe that having having a reliable indicator of inactivity is prerequisite. For my part, I'd appreciate, if others have a good estimate how active I am in certain fields. Part of our openness, isn't it?
cheers, JW-
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 21:03:27 +0100, Juergen Weigert wrote:
We could make passwords expire after say 2 years. Then those definitions become much easier, I'd say.
That doesn't answer the question, it more or less avoids the question.
I am dodging the questions for now, because I believe that having having a reliable indicator of inactivity is prerequisite.
Defining inactivity as "didn't participate in a qualifying activity" means you need to define a "qualifying activity".
But Bryen's clarification makes that question moot.
For my part, I'd appreciate, if others have a good estimate how active I am in certain fields. Part of our openness, isn't it?
Well, yes, someone who says they've been active should, if asked, be able to demonstrate it (or someone should be able to back it up in some way).
Jim
On Lunes, 20 de febrero de 2012 20:08:53 Juergen Weigert escribió:
On Feb 20, 12 18:58:05 +0000, Jim Henderson wrote:
The proposal's intent is to address the question: "Should we move members who have not participated and are uncontactable for a certain period of time into some sort of inactive status?" It's a fair question that Robert ask, and one that deserves some consideration.
It is a fair question, no doubt. But it begs the question as to what constitutes "activity", and that hasn't really been defined. It's hard to discuss moving people to an 'inactive' status if 'active' isn't clearly defined.
We could make passwords expire after say 2 years. Then those definitions become much easier, I'd say.
(assuming, we implement such expiration and timely reminders in an automated fashion, of course).
cheers, JW-
Hey, not bad idea. Password expires and you will need to change it on that xxxxxxxxxx time or will resend a request to xxxxx@opensuse.org to reactivate it.
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 20:08:53 +0100 Juergen Weigert jw@suse.de wrote:
We could make passwords expire after say 2 years. Then those definitions become much easier, I'd say.
That is simple solution that everyone is looking for.
Forced password change will improve security and give additional benefit to know who did not touch openSUSE infrastructure for a certain period. Not ideal, but any better will ask for far more resources then one time process design and few scripts to automate it.
Period of password validity should follow security guidelines, not arbitrary numbers to accommodate activity tracking. Once password expired admin should receive email that is easy to parse and use to start countdown of grace for accounts that belong to members.
During grace period request for a new password will reset counter.
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 20:20:41 -0600 "Rajko M." rmatov101@charter.net wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 20:08:53 +0100 Juergen Weigert jw@suse.de wrote:
We could make passwords expire after say 2 years. Then those definitions become much easier, I'd say.
That is simple solution that everyone is looking for.
Forced password change will improve security and give additional benefit to know who did not touch openSUSE infrastructure for a certain period. Not ideal, but any better will ask for far more resources then one time process design and few scripts to automate it.
Period of password validity should follow security guidelines, not arbitrary numbers to accommodate activity tracking. Once password expired admin should receive email that is easy to parse and use to start countdown of grace for accounts that belong to members.
During grace period request for a new password will reset counter.
Which password... I have many?
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 20:23:30 -0600 Malcolm malcolm_lewis@bellsouth.net wrote:
Which password... I have many?
I guess one for opensuse.org domain :)
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 22:03:00 -0600 "Rajko M." rmatov101@charter.net wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 20:23:30 -0600 Malcolm malcolm_lewis@bellsouth.net wrote:
Which password... I have many?
I guess one for opensuse.org domain :)
Hardly use it.... except when voting ;)
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 22:45:40 -0600 Malcolm malcolm_lewis@bellsouth.net wrote:
Hardly use it.... except when voting ;)
and packaging, and reporting bugs, and ... :)
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 22:57:46 -0600 "Rajko M." rmatov101@charter.net wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 22:45:40 -0600 Malcolm malcolm_lewis@bellsouth.net wrote:
Hardly use it.... except when voting ;)
and packaging, and reporting bugs, and ... :)
OBS is separate now is not tied into NAM... bugs different account not my openSUSE one. Now I'm assuming it picks up via a forum login, but if one only spent time on OBS, this may not work?
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 23:04:55 -0600 Malcolm malcolm_lewis@bellsouth.net wrote:
OBS is separate now is not tied into NAM... bugs different account not my openSUSE one. Now I'm assuming it picks up via a forum login, but if one only spent time on OBS, this may not work?
It is possible to set passwords to expire on any service in opensuse.org domain, so that is not a problem.
This is about confirming contributions with assumption that information in a membership application is correct and that member will keep it up to date. It is just to identify service where is active. Finally, it is not openSUSE obligation nor interest to keep someone as a member if person doesn't show some interest for that.
What openSUSE has to do is to define where is that info stored. Connect openSUSE has room for this type of information and it should be the only medium that both, user keeps up to date and membership officials check.
Current situation with multiple choices is unsustainable. Member info can be on http://connect.opensuse.org, or one of the wikis, or bugzilla, or Build Service, or whatever comes in mind, like some server somewhere in the world, or among friends in a local school.
Le 27/02/2012 05:03, Rajko M. a écrit :
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 20:23:30 -0600 Malcolmmalcolm_lewis@bellsouth.net wrote:
Which password... I have many?
I guess one for opensuse.org domain :)
there is no pass for mailing lists
jdd
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:21:05 +0100 jdd jdd@dodin.org wrote:
there is no pass for mailing lists
There is subscribe event, but subscribing few months would be tiresome.
It can be sent reminder email with reply link, and after 1 click to reply countdown counter is set to 0. In case of missing reply counter is set on whatever grace period is agreed upon, and new mail is sent every month counting how many no reply events happened.
It is about the same as with passwords.
-
amon0.thoth1＠gmail.com -
Basil Chupin -
Bryen M Yunashko -
Cornelius Schumacher -
Gerald Pfeifer -
jdd -
Jim Henderson -
Juergen Weigert -
Kim Leyendecker -
Malcolm -
Mike McCallister -
Nelson Marques -
Pascal Bleser -
Patrick Shanahan -
Per Jessen -
Rajko M. -
Ricardo Chung
-
Robert Schweikert -
Togan Muftuoglu -
Vincent Untz