Generally good, some questions of clarification below: On Thu, 2012-02-16 at 12:20 -0500, Robert Schweikert wrote: 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. 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..." 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. 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.) 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 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner(a)opensuse.org

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: -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner(a)opensuse.org