Re: gnome foundation: some key issues to discuss.

[Bart Decrem <bart eazel com>]

Hi Jonathan,

I agree with your comment, but Chema's proposal might be an easy way to
handle the logistics of deciding who's a member.  In other words, members
are hackers + some folks who knock on the committee's door and ask for it.

Bart

Jonathan Blandford wrote:

> Chema Celorio <chema@celorio.com> writes:
> > 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".
>
> Ugh,
>
> I don't like this.  Implies those who translate are second class
> citizens.  I'd rather have member/non-member.  Those who just
> occaisionally send in patches then have incentive to become full
> members, and it doesn't leave people feeling somewhat resentful.  Lets
> aim for just a 'member/observer' role, and keep the barrier to becoming
> a member very low.
>
> -Jonathan
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-list mailing list
> foundation-list@gnome.org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list