Re: gnome foundation: some key issues to discuss.

[Chema Celorio <chema celorio com>]

Havoc Pennington wrote:
> I think we need something a bit better than that. Personally I'd like
> to keep a strong decision-making ability; I don't want Debian levels
> of bureaucracy. Too many random people leads to inability to get
> anything done.
> 
> So I'd like most decisions to go through a group of people that are
> definitely current active contributors, who track what's going on in
> the GNOME world on a daily basis.

I agree, we need a small group of people that take most of the
desitions.
This gives us the ability to act fast and not waste a lot of time 
discusing every issue for months. So if this group of people will 
represent the larger gnome community I guess the way to go is to
elect this small group. 

Now, how do we decide our voting base isn't easy.

Here is a brain-storm proposal :
2 different types of membership :

Normal - 
probably most members will fall into this category. We
should determine a clear set of rules one needs to fit
to get this kind of membership.
	- cvs account
	- some kind of meassurement of contributions over
          the last year
	- approval from 4 number of members 
	etc ...

This memebership should be very easy to aquire if you meet
the criteria specified.

Special  -
Reserved for special case scenarios. If you don't fully qualify
for a membership, you can apply for a special membership and
have the board decide upon an application.  Things like
"I translate and I send patches" or "I make icons/artwork and I
don't commit directly to the cvs".

Chema