Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-project (54 mails)

< Previous Next >
RE: [opensuse-project] Proposal: Reforming openSUSE Membership To Better Reflect Our Ethos
  • From: <jimmypierre.rouen.france@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 16:51:07 +0100
  • Message-id: <04cc01d3a350$217986c0$646c9440$>

-----Original Message-----
From: Ronan Chagas [mailto:ronisbr@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 11 February 2018 16:00
To: Richard Brown
Cc: opensuse-project
Subject: Re: [opensuse-project] Proposal: Reforming openSUSE Membership To
Better Reflect Our Ethos

Hi Richard,

Em 10 de fev de 2018, à(s) 15:06, Richard Brown <RBrownCCB@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

1) Connect is a pain to use - It's unmaintained, and our openSUSE
Heroes infra team very much want to stop running the server.
2) Connect is a REAL pain to use - a significant percentage of
membership requests do not include any claimed contributions, so the
committee cannot verify those contributions and have no choice but to
reject them.
3) Connect is an ABSOLUTE pain to use - the membership committee never
get notified when there is new application, meaning that applications
can often linger for weeks or months before enough vote positively or
negatively to accept an application.
4) Connect is an UNGODLY pain to use - anyone reapplying for
membership immediately shows up the committees queue with their
previous voting score - which has on way too many occasions led to
instant-deapproval when the committee didn't realise the person was
applying for a second time. (I'm pretty sure this even happened to me,
back in the day).

I can’t agree more.

The Board would therefore like to propose a much streamlined
Membership scheme for the future. The structure we propose would be
something like:

* 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
* Once becoming a Member, they can remain a member as long as they
have an interest in the Project. - If ongoing contributions cease or
the contributions cannot be automatically detected, Members will be
asked by a bot if they wish to remain a Member.

I liked this proposal, when I submitted my membership, it really took very long
to be analyzed that I started to think whether I did something wrong.

Given the nature of this change, the Board would like the feedback and
consensus of the Project as a whole.
If the overwhelming responses to this post is approval of this
approach, then we'd like to see the Project start implementing it
post-haste, possibly even before the upcoming next election.

I agree with almost everything here and I think this will make things better.

However, of course, if there is a significant debate to be had, the
right way of resolving this might be a vote by the current Membership
- this is one of the reasons why this proposal is announced today;
After the election problems we had with last year
the Board wanted to be sure we had an alternative voting platform
available if we need it.
Our awesome openSUSE Heroes have just completed confidence tests of
one such system, so if we need it, it's available.

A new voting platform for those things will be very nice. However, I would like
to see the members more involved in the big decisions related to the
distribution. I think we can use this new voting platform so that the members
can really help in big decisions. I miss that. The famous naming controversy
would be much more defendable if a voting was arranged and 50% of the members
accepted it (personally, I did not like the naming initially but now I agree
with it). Another option is to turn the decisions into something like
enterprise with open capital do. The members will have a percentage of the
total “stocks” and the members of the board will have another. Every big
decision will be voted concurrently by the board members and the openSUSE
member, given the share each one have. Now, what big decisions means is
something for another debate :) Well, this is just my 2 cents.

Hi All,

Just in case, I have just updated my Connect profile.

I guess that the board has its own social ML etc. I have a lot of experience
with companies 24/24, 7/7, what normally happens is that there are
committees/sub committees etc. who do interact and report in a fashionable way.
The process can be long, but if everybody plays the game correctly, it can be
easy to follow.

We just need to remember that we sometimes have a job to do for a living and
also contributing to the project should be earmarked and the time allocated for
the project should not under-estimated. Otherwise, it becomes a burden.

So when it comes to voting, I am inter-alia a Transition Manager, sometimes
change is mandatory for an organization to go forward. So be it! Whatever can
ease the way we contribute is welcome!

At the end of the day, we have a lot of fun, honest :)

Jimmy Pierre

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

< Previous Next >