Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-project (59 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-project] Proposal: Reforming openSUSE Membership To Better Reflect Our Ethos
Dear all,

Completely agree that there is a need for change and I accept the proposed
measures. I do have one question or proposal though - there should be a clear
definition on what is accepted or considered as contribution. For example is
advocacy considered as contribution or not? Furthermore there should be emitted
a clear message what kind of contribution is needed mostly in short and long
term.

Regards,
Dimitar Zahariev
openSUSE Advocate
+359899605664

On 11 Feb 2018, at 12:14, Richard Brown <RBrownCCB@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 11 February 2018 at 10:13, Carlos E. R. <robin.listas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Saturday, 2018-02-10 at 18:06 +0100, Richard Brown wrote:

Seems good to me.

I have doubts about one part, though:

* openSUSE Members will retain all of the rights, benefits, and
responsibilities they do today (Voting, Emails/Cloaks Recalling the
Board, etc)
* Any openSUSE contributor can apply to be a Member
* The threshold for Membership will be reduced from "sustained and
substantial contribution" to "a contribution and a desire to be a
Member" (ie. not every contributor should feel compelled to engage
with the Project in this way).
* If the contribution can be automatically verified, they will
automatically become a Member. (New tooling here will be required, but
for example, a quick parse of the public mailinglists would be able to
verify a good number of contributions, be they through bug reporting,
package contributions, or support on the mailinglists)
* If they cannot be automatically verified, they need to be manually
verified, but only require a single +1 vote from the Membership
committee.


This is the part I have doubts: single vote?
And no veto possibility?

I think veto should be a possibility, but should be justified. And then
perhaps a third person would have to decide between the pro and against, if
the two can not agree.

on what grounds would it be justified to veto a potential member?
If we go down such a road, I believe such disqualifying criteria
should be clearly defined and not reliant on interpretation.

This is a flaw we have in the current system - because we require
'sustained and substantial' contribution, candidates are often
veto'd/deadlocked because of a difference of opinion.

In the proposed system, the only question is whether or not the
contributor has contributed.
If they have not, then they can't be a member.
If they have, then they can.

I don't think we can come up with a clearer or simpler criteria. What
would you add?
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >