Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-project (245 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-project] openSUSE Membership: a general comment
  • From: "Francis Giannaros" <francis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:59:23 +0000
  • Message-id: <94dc34e40802110659h78b9cb6fpd4abcfc4e95111d0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Feb 11, 2008 2:06 PM, Michael Loeffler <michl@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Monday 11 February 2008, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
"Francis Giannaros" <francis@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
On Feb 11, 2008 11:02 AM, Cornelius Schumacher <cschum@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Monday 11 February 2008, Francis Giannaros wrote:
On Feb 11, 2008 10:29 AM, Cornelius Schumacher <cschum@xxxxxxx> wrote:
I would suggest to use "core member" or "core contributor"
instead. This captures the fact that the people who get
addresses are the core of the project and still doesn't exclude
anybody from feeling as a member or contributor to the project
without formal recognition.

I simply don't think this confusion arises as much as you are

Well, I was confused, and I think a couple of others as well.

If there is no perfect term, then there will certainly be some people
that are confused. Since the amount of confused people seem to be so
few, and other terms seem to be even more problematic, it seems like
the best solution.

There's indeed no perfect term - the question is which is better.
something like "core member" might help indeed (or another annotation) -
but I'm not a language expert.

Most open source projects. Like I said, "core contributor/developer"
generally refers to people working on the _core_ part of the project.
For example in KDE where you work, a core developer might be someone
who i.e. hacks on kdelibs, whereas we don't want to restrict openSUSE
members to this core part only. We want translators, supporters, and
contributors of all kinds to be in theory eligible.

:-( Why is there no adequate expression? Perhaps we should create a

new word? ;-)
What about (1) "openSUSE contributor" or (2) "official openSUSE contributor"?
I'd prefer (1)
What I hear in the thread is that several people have an issue
with "memberhsip".

I have said that the term isn't perfect, but I want to be clear: I
still think it's a very good term, consistent, serves its purpose
well, and generally very unambiguous. It seems like only Thomas and
Cornelius were objecting to this (though Thomas seems to object to the
Guiding Principles too), since Roger wants us to think about the
implications of the system more than naming (from what I can gather --
correct me if I'm wrong). In comparison to the amount of people that
have already applied, and/or others reading this, that's like a 2%
objection, if not less.

Is there anyone here who realistically thinks there couldn't be a
smaller amount of objection with a change like this? :-) I'd say the
response so far has been very good, that there's been good discussion,
but that it's also patently clear how we should proceed.

And I think they are right as membership indicates a fee,
a closed circle or a door man.

The fact that it's an open source project makes it clearer, I think,
that no fee would ever be involved. That there's an inner circle of
dedicated openSUSE contributors/members can hardly be seen as a
negative thing. The key is that it's not an inaccessible or 'secret'
inner circle: we should keep things transparent.

That there's a doorman is also not negative, since it's not entry to
the community that requires direct approval, but of people that are
going to be representative in some way of the project, which is hardly

"Contributor" is very equivocal as someone who sends one patch is also
a contributor, whereas there's a difference with members. "Official
contributor" sounds awkward as we're implying that anyone else
contributing is an unofficial contributor.

Francis Giannaros
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >
Follow Ups