Re: GNOME Foundation membership guidelines.

On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 12:38:42AM -0800, Gregory Leblanc was heard to remark:
> On Tue, 2002-10-22 at 15:32, Nat Friedman wrote:
> > 
> > Proposal
> > --------
> > 
> The key to having a Foundation that does a good job
> of that is having members who care enough about GNOME to be -active- in
> it's leadership.  I don't think that approving somebody who wrote an
> application manual for GNOME 1.0 and hasn't done anything since then,
> not even participating on the mailing lists, will lead to a Foundation
> that does such leadership.

"active" is a relative term.  I haven't been "active" in gnome for 
over two two years, yet I still care what goes on here.   For
example,  the workings of the gnome foundation affect the future
of, a server that I put in (significant) time & money
to operate: and so I care about this future.  But right now I do
not have the opportunity to be "active", and would hate to be shut
out of the process.

> I don't think lifetime membership in the GNOME Foundation is a good
> policy.  We need folks who are currently active in GNOME.  I'd like to
> see a 2 year span on membership for the GNOME Foundation.  

I beleive 2 years is too short.  At least 4 or 5 is better.  When
you get older, 2 years can just blink by.  I've been busy, but I
don't want to be disenfranchised simply because I'm busy elsewhere.
Not that I've ever felt particularly "enfranchised"; I've never
felt like I was a part of the gnome "in crowd"; I don't see that
I need to be reminded that I'm not part of the "in crowd" by getting
kicked after a couple of years.   I'd argue that most past & present
developers who wrote code that uses gtk/gnome/glade/etc. have
*never* felt that they were part of the Gnome In Crowd (aka
leadership), or felt that they had any sway on the future of gnome.
To remind these busy, slightly-involved, mostly-disinterested
onlookers (who just happen to write code that uses gnome) that 
they aren't wanted after a 2 years of slight-involvement, 
partial-disinterest doesn't achieve a thing.  It certainly wouldn't
stroke *my* ego (which needs regular stroking), or give me any 
sort of warm fuzzies about the gnome foundation, or encourage my 
loyalty or allegiance if I was booted because I had to fill out
yet another god-damned administrative 'effing form every two years.

(That's not a threat. That's just an example of how many people think.
And, on a bad day, its the little things, like expired memberships,
that can piss you off and cause you to burn bridges).


> I disagree here.  If they made a contribution at some point, but are no
> longer participating in GNOME, then they don't belong as a GNOME
> member.  At the bare minimum, they should still be following some of the
> GNOME development related mailing lists. 

I have *never* followed a GNOME development related mailing list.
I don't see what this has to do with anything.  I've still written
a half-dozen gnome apps.  What's the development lists got to do
with it?

> GNOME Foundation membership isn't a "reward" for being good.  GNOME
> Foundation membership is a privledge granted to people who are
> interested enough in GNOME to contribute to it, and who care enough to
> want to shape the direction it's going.

Please keep in mind that this is a volunteer-driven, unpaid
activity.  My experience in coordinating volunteer groups is
that pissing off the volunteers serves no purpose.  Its *very easy*
to shrink the membership roles of a volunteer organization, and
a lot harder to grow them.  Maybe I've already pissed you off.
See what I mean?


pub  1024D/01045933 2001-02-01 Linas Vepstas (Labas!) <linas linas org>
PGP Key fingerprint = 8305 2521 6000 0B5E 8984  3F54 64A9 9A82 0104 5933

Attachment: pgpyaIVUD83AL.pgp
Description: PGP signature

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]