Re: Proposal: Clarify individual members page

[Andrew Mshar]

 Small typo in my previous post. Clearly I meant I'll open the PR next 
year...

Better late than never, here is the PR with changes from my previous draft 
based on everyone's input: 
https://github.com/django/djangoproject.com/pull/1406

Thanks again for all the feedback.

On Friday, November 11, 2022 at 1:52:07 PM UTC-5 Andrew Mshar wrote:

> I like that idea, Tim. A few things came up, so I'll open this PR next 
> week.
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew
>
> On Friday, November 11, 2022 at 12:21:43 PM UTC-5 schill...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi folks!
>>
>> Andrew (Mshar) how do you feel about reworking:
>>
>> > If you know someone who you think should be considered for Individual 
>> Membership or would like to nominate yourself, please fill out this form 
>> 
>> .
>>
>> To something that places more focus on self-nomination, with nominating 
>> others as the alternative such as:
>>
>> If you would like to apply for Individual Membership, please fill out 
>> this form. You can also nominate others if you know someone who should be 
>> considered.
>>
>> My reasoning:
>>
>>- The use of "apply" rather than "nominate yourself". People are used 
>>to applying for things for themselves. I imagine fewer nominate 
>> themselves 
>>for things making it less comfortable. I think using language that's more 
>>comfortable will encourage people.
>>- Moving the nomination of others to the end highlights that applying 
>>for yourself is not the exception flow. Again, this should help encourage 
>>people to apply.
>>
>>
>> Thanks for driving this!
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 10:24 PM Andrew Godwin  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Just want to pop in and say these are great ideas - feel free to copy me 
>>> in on any PR if you want extra opinions!
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 8:26:28 AM UTC-7 Carlton Gibson wrote:
>>>
 Great, Thanks Andrew. No urgency 

 On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 at 16:16, Andrew Mshar  wrote:

> Will do, Carlton.
>
> Tim and Cory, thanks for the suggestions. I'll incorporate those in 
> the PR and post here when it's ready. Probably not today, but I should be 
> able to open it before the end of the week.
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew
>
> On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 10:10:51 AM UTC-5 carlton...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>> Hey Andrew. 
>>
>> I had thought this was a Flatpage (stored in the database) but it's 
>> not. 
>> The source is here: 
>> https://github.com/django/djangoproject.com/blob/main/djangoproject/templates/members/individualmember_list.html
>> If you wanted to open a PR suggesting your changes, that would be 
>> amazing 朗
>>
>> Thanks. 
>>
>> Kind Regards,
>>
>> Carlton
>>
>> On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 at 19:51, Tim Allen  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm of the opinion that if you care enough about Django to 
>>> investigate becoming a member of the DSF, that's enough of a 
>>> qualification 
>>> - it is just challenging to formalize that into proper text for the 
>>> website. Maybe two changes to encourage people to join:
>>>
>>>- We could tweak *"Running Django-related events or user 
>>>groups"  *to *"Attending or organizing Django-related events or 
>>>user groups"*.
>>>- Add a sentence to the end of the first stanza: "The following 
>>>are Individual Members of the Django Software Foundation. The DSF 
>>> appoints 
>>>individual Members in recognition of their service to the Django 
>>> community. 
>>>If you would like to join the DSF, we welcome you. Please feel free 
>>> to 
>>>self-nominate for membership."
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Tim
>>>
>>> On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 11:12:41 AM UTC-5 cory...@gmail.com 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hey Andrew,

 Thanks for drafting this language and I think it looks great. As 
 someone who only recently applied after hearing it discussed on an 
 episode 
 of Django Chat[1], I'm all for the goals of making it more encouraging 
 and 
 accessible and think this is a great step in that direction.

 Here are a few minor thoughts to specific bits:

 Service to the Django community takes many forms. Here are some 
> examples (non-exhaustive) of categories of work performed by members:
>

 "performed by members" is a little ambiguous as to whether it means 
 "this is how we evaluate applicants" vs "this is what you'll do if 
 part of 
 the DSF". Since I think the intention is the former it might make 
 sense to 
 change to something like:

 *Service to the Django community takes many forms. Here are some 
 

Re: Proposal: Clarify individual members page

[Andrew Mshar]

I like that idea, Tim. A few things came up, so I'll open this PR next week.

Thanks,
Andrew

On Friday, November 11, 2022 at 12:21:43 PM UTC-5 schill...@gmail.com wrote:

> Hi folks!
>
> Andrew (Mshar) how do you feel about reworking:
>
> > If you know someone who you think should be considered for Individual 
> Membership or would like to nominate yourself, please fill out this form 
> 
> .
>
> To something that places more focus on self-nomination, with nominating 
> others as the alternative such as:
>
> If you would like to apply for Individual Membership, please fill out this 
> form. You can also nominate others if you know someone who should be 
> considered.
>
> My reasoning:
>
>- The use of "apply" rather than "nominate yourself". People are used 
>to applying for things for themselves. I imagine fewer nominate themselves 
>for things making it less comfortable. I think using language that's more 
>comfortable will encourage people.
>- Moving the nomination of others to the end highlights that applying 
>for yourself is not the exception flow. Again, this should help encourage 
>people to apply.
>
>
> Thanks for driving this!
>
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 10:24 PM Andrew Godwin  wrote:
>
>> Just want to pop in and say these are great ideas - feel free to copy me 
>> in on any PR if you want extra opinions!
>>
>> On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 8:26:28 AM UTC-7 Carlton Gibson wrote:
>>
>>> Great, Thanks Andrew. No urgency 
>>>
>>> On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 at 16:16, Andrew Mshar  wrote:
>>>
 Will do, Carlton.

 Tim and Cory, thanks for the suggestions. I'll incorporate those in the 
 PR and post here when it's ready. Probably not today, but I should be able 
 to open it before the end of the week.

 Thanks,
 Andrew

 On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 10:10:51 AM UTC-5 carlton...@gmail.com 
 wrote:

> Hey Andrew. 
>
> I had thought this was a Flatpage (stored in the database) but it's 
> not. 
> The source is here: 
> https://github.com/django/djangoproject.com/blob/main/djangoproject/templates/members/individualmember_list.html
> If you wanted to open a PR suggesting your changes, that would be 
> amazing 朗
>
> Thanks. 
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Carlton
>
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 at 19:51, Tim Allen  
> wrote:
>
>> I'm of the opinion that if you care enough about Django to 
>> investigate becoming a member of the DSF, that's enough of a 
>> qualification 
>> - it is just challenging to formalize that into proper text for the 
>> website. Maybe two changes to encourage people to join:
>>
>>- We could tweak *"Running Django-related events or user 
>>groups"  *to *"Attending or organizing Django-related events or 
>>user groups"*.
>>- Add a sentence to the end of the first stanza: "The following 
>>are Individual Members of the Django Software Foundation. The DSF 
>> appoints 
>>individual Members in recognition of their service to the Django 
>> community. 
>>If you would like to join the DSF, we welcome you. Please feel free 
>> to 
>>self-nominate for membership."
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Tim
>>
>> On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 11:12:41 AM UTC-5 cory...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hey Andrew,
>>>
>>> Thanks for drafting this language and I think it looks great. As 
>>> someone who only recently applied after hearing it discussed on an 
>>> episode 
>>> of Django Chat[1], I'm all for the goals of making it more encouraging 
>>> and 
>>> accessible and think this is a great step in that direction.
>>>
>>> Here are a few minor thoughts to specific bits:
>>>
>>> Service to the Django community takes many forms. Here are some 
 examples (non-exhaustive) of categories of work performed by members:

>>>
>>> "performed by members" is a little ambiguous as to whether it means 
>>> "this is how we evaluate applicants" vs "this is what you'll do if part 
>>> of 
>>> the DSF". Since I think the intention is the former it might make sense 
>>> to 
>>> change to something like:
>>>
>>> *Service to the Django community takes many forms. Here are some 
>>> (non-exhaustive) examples of the categories of work that might qualify 
>>> as 
>>> "service":*
>>>
>>> Borrowed the list of categories from Andrew Godwin's DEP for the 
 update to the technical board. Per Tim's recommendation, do we want to 
 include anything about the review process?

>>>
>>> When I applied I didn't (and still don't, really) have any 
>>> visibility into the process, so it wasn't a deterrent for me, 
>>> personally, 

Re: Proposal: Clarify individual members page

[Tim Schilling]

Hi folks!

Andrew (Mshar) how do you feel about reworking:

> If you know someone who you think should be considered for Individual
Membership or would like to nominate yourself, please fill out this form

.

To something that places more focus on self-nomination, with nominating
others as the alternative such as:

If you would like to apply for Individual Membership, please fill out this
form. You can also nominate others if you know someone who should be
considered.

My reasoning:

   - The use of "apply" rather than "nominate yourself". People are used to
   applying for things for themselves. I imagine fewer nominate themselves for
   things making it less comfortable. I think using language that's more
   comfortable will encourage people.
   - Moving the nomination of others to the end highlights that applying
   for yourself is not the exception flow. Again, this should help encourage
   people to apply.


Thanks for driving this!

On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 10:24 PM Andrew Godwin  wrote:

> Just want to pop in and say these are great ideas - feel free to copy me
> in on any PR if you want extra opinions!
>
> On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 8:26:28 AM UTC-7 Carlton Gibson wrote:
>
>> Great, Thanks Andrew. No urgency 
>>
>> On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 at 16:16, Andrew Mshar  wrote:
>>
>>> Will do, Carlton.
>>>
>>> Tim and Cory, thanks for the suggestions. I'll incorporate those in the
>>> PR and post here when it's ready. Probably not today, but I should be able
>>> to open it before the end of the week.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Andrew
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 10:10:51 AM UTC-5 carlton...@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hey Andrew.

 I had thought this was a Flatpage (stored in the database) but it's
 not.
 The source is here:
 https://github.com/django/djangoproject.com/blob/main/djangoproject/templates/members/individualmember_list.html
 If you wanted to open a PR suggesting your changes, that would be
 amazing 朗

 Thanks.

 Kind Regards,

 Carlton

 On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 at 19:51, Tim Allen 
 wrote:

> I'm of the opinion that if you care enough about Django to investigate
> becoming a member of the DSF, that's enough of a qualification - it is 
> just
> challenging to formalize that into proper text for the website. Maybe two
> changes to encourage people to join:
>
>- We could tweak *"Running Django-related events or user groups"  *
>to *"Attending or organizing Django-related events or user groups"*
>.
>- Add a sentence to the end of the first stanza: "The following
>are Individual Members of the Django Software Foundation. The DSF 
> appoints
>individual Members in recognition of their service to the Django 
> community.
>If you would like to join the DSF, we welcome you. Please feel free to
>self-nominate for membership."
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim
>
> On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 11:12:41 AM UTC-5 cory...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>> Hey Andrew,
>>
>> Thanks for drafting this language and I think it looks great. As
>> someone who only recently applied after hearing it discussed on an 
>> episode
>> of Django Chat[1], I'm all for the goals of making it more encouraging 
>> and
>> accessible and think this is a great step in that direction.
>>
>> Here are a few minor thoughts to specific bits:
>>
>> Service to the Django community takes many forms. Here are some
>>> examples (non-exhaustive) of categories of work performed by members:
>>>
>>
>> "performed by members" is a little ambiguous as to whether it means
>> "this is how we evaluate applicants" vs "this is what you'll do if part 
>> of
>> the DSF". Since I think the intention is the former it might make sense 
>> to
>> change to something like:
>>
>> *Service to the Django community takes many forms. Here are some
>> (non-exhaustive) examples of the categories of work that might qualify as
>> "service":*
>>
>> Borrowed the list of categories from Andrew Godwin's DEP for the
>>> update to the technical board. Per Tim's recommendation, do we want to
>>> include anything about the review process?
>>>
>>
>> When I applied I didn't (and still don't, really) have any visibility
>> into the process, so it wasn't a deterrent for me, personally, but I 
>> think
>> having information certainly wouldn't hurt. My two cents would be good to
>> put something in, but not necessarily if it slows down/stalls this change
>> if for whatever reason that isn't super easy, since I think this 
>> represents
>> an improvement on its own.
>>
>> Also, I'm a little unsure about that last bit about applying, but I

Re: Proposal: Clarify individual members page

[Andrew Godwin]

Just want to pop in and say these are great ideas - feel free to copy me in 
on any PR if you want extra opinions!

On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 8:26:28 AM UTC-7 Carlton Gibson wrote:

> Great, Thanks Andrew. No urgency 
>
> On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 at 16:16, Andrew Mshar  wrote:
>
>> Will do, Carlton.
>>
>> Tim and Cory, thanks for the suggestions. I'll incorporate those in the 
>> PR and post here when it's ready. Probably not today, but I should be able 
>> to open it before the end of the week.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Andrew
>>
>> On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 10:10:51 AM UTC-5 carlton...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hey Andrew. 
>>>
>>> I had thought this was a Flatpage (stored in the database) but it's not. 
>>> The source is here: 
>>> https://github.com/django/djangoproject.com/blob/main/djangoproject/templates/members/individualmember_list.html
>>> If you wanted to open a PR suggesting your changes, that would be 
>>> amazing 朗
>>>
>>> Thanks. 
>>>
>>> Kind Regards,
>>>
>>> Carlton
>>>
>>> On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 at 19:51, Tim Allen  
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I'm of the opinion that if you care enough about Django to investigate 
 becoming a member of the DSF, that's enough of a qualification - it is 
 just 
 challenging to formalize that into proper text for the website. Maybe two 
 changes to encourage people to join:

- We could tweak *"Running Django-related events or user groups"  *
to *"Attending or organizing Django-related events or user groups"*.
- Add a sentence to the end of the first stanza: "The following are 
Individual Members of the Django Software Foundation. The DSF appoints 
individual Members in recognition of their service to the Django 
 community. 
If you would like to join the DSF, we welcome you. Please feel free to 
self-nominate for membership."

 Regards,

 Tim

 On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 11:12:41 AM UTC-5 cory...@gmail.com 
 wrote:

> Hey Andrew,
>
> Thanks for drafting this language and I think it looks great. As 
> someone who only recently applied after hearing it discussed on an 
> episode 
> of Django Chat[1], I'm all for the goals of making it more encouraging 
> and 
> accessible and think this is a great step in that direction.
>
> Here are a few minor thoughts to specific bits:
>
> Service to the Django community takes many forms. Here are some 
>> examples (non-exhaustive) of categories of work performed by members:
>>
>
> "performed by members" is a little ambiguous as to whether it means 
> "this is how we evaluate applicants" vs "this is what you'll do if part 
> of 
> the DSF". Since I think the intention is the former it might make sense 
> to 
> change to something like:
>
> *Service to the Django community takes many forms. Here are some 
> (non-exhaustive) examples of the categories of work that might qualify as 
> "service":*
>
> Borrowed the list of categories from Andrew Godwin's DEP for the 
>> update to the technical board. Per Tim's recommendation, do we want to 
>> include anything about the review process?
>>
>
> When I applied I didn't (and still don't, really) have any visibility 
> into the process, so it wasn't a deterrent for me, personally, but I 
> think 
> having information certainly wouldn't hurt. My two cents would be good to 
> put something in, but not necessarily if it slows down/stalls this change 
> if for whatever reason that isn't super easy, since I think this 
> represents 
> an improvement on its own.
>
> Also, I'm a little unsure about that last bit about applying, but I 
>> wanted to put something encouraging to folks to apply. Happy to reword 
>> that 
>> if someone has a better suggestion. I'd prefer that to having a full 
>> rubric 
>> for membership on this page, primarily because I think it would be very 
>> difficult to nail that down because the work that folks perform can be 
>> so 
>> disparate (must have run X django meetups, or triaged Y tickets). 
>>
>
> Definitely agree a rubric would cause more problems than it would help 
> at this stage. The goals of rubrics in terms of increasing objectivity 
> and 
> reducing bias are great, but as applied to the already-squishy definition 
> of "service to the community" it doesn't seem like a good fit here.
>
> Finally, this is wildly out of scope, but it may make sense to (either 
> here or separately) attempt to create a bit more content about what it 
> means to be an individual member of the DSF. That information is also 
> somewhat lacking, and having it somewhere may encourage more people to 
> apply. One possibility could be to link to one of the recent conference 
> talks[2][3] on the DSF. But wouldn't want that 

Re: Proposal: Clarify individual members page

[Carlton Gibson]

Great, Thanks Andrew. No urgency 

On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 at 16:16, Andrew Mshar  wrote:

> Will do, Carlton.
>
> Tim and Cory, thanks for the suggestions. I'll incorporate those in the PR
> and post here when it's ready. Probably not today, but I should be able to
> open it before the end of the week.
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew
>
> On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 10:10:51 AM UTC-5 carlton...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>> Hey Andrew.
>>
>> I had thought this was a Flatpage (stored in the database) but it's not.
>> The source is here:
>> https://github.com/django/djangoproject.com/blob/main/djangoproject/templates/members/individualmember_list.html
>> If you wanted to open a PR suggesting your changes, that would be amazing
>> 朗
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Kind Regards,
>>
>> Carlton
>>
>> On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 at 19:51, Tim Allen  wrote:
>>
>>> I'm of the opinion that if you care enough about Django to investigate
>>> becoming a member of the DSF, that's enough of a qualification - it is just
>>> challenging to formalize that into proper text for the website. Maybe two
>>> changes to encourage people to join:
>>>
>>>- We could tweak *"Running Django-related events or user groups"  *
>>>to *"Attending or organizing Django-related events or user groups"*.
>>>- Add a sentence to the end of the first stanza: "The following are
>>>Individual Members of the Django Software Foundation. The DSF appoints
>>>individual Members in recognition of their service to the Django 
>>> community.
>>>If you would like to join the DSF, we welcome you. Please feel free to
>>>self-nominate for membership."
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Tim
>>>
>>> On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 11:12:41 AM UTC-5 cory...@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hey Andrew,

 Thanks for drafting this language and I think it looks great. As
 someone who only recently applied after hearing it discussed on an episode
 of Django Chat[1], I'm all for the goals of making it more encouraging and
 accessible and think this is a great step in that direction.

 Here are a few minor thoughts to specific bits:

 Service to the Django community takes many forms. Here are some
> examples (non-exhaustive) of categories of work performed by members:
>

 "performed by members" is a little ambiguous as to whether it means
 "this is how we evaluate applicants" vs "this is what you'll do if part of
 the DSF". Since I think the intention is the former it might make sense to
 change to something like:

 *Service to the Django community takes many forms. Here are some
 (non-exhaustive) examples of the categories of work that might qualify as
 "service":*

 Borrowed the list of categories from Andrew Godwin's DEP for the update
> to the technical board. Per Tim's recommendation, do we want to include
> anything about the review process?
>

 When I applied I didn't (and still don't, really) have any visibility
 into the process, so it wasn't a deterrent for me, personally, but I think
 having information certainly wouldn't hurt. My two cents would be good to
 put something in, but not necessarily if it slows down/stalls this change
 if for whatever reason that isn't super easy, since I think this represents
 an improvement on its own.

 Also, I'm a little unsure about that last bit about applying, but I
> wanted to put something encouraging to folks to apply. Happy to reword 
> that
> if someone has a better suggestion. I'd prefer that to having a full 
> rubric
> for membership on this page, primarily because I think it would be very
> difficult to nail that down because the work that folks perform can be so
> disparate (must have run X django meetups, or triaged Y tickets).
>

 Definitely agree a rubric would cause more problems than it would help
 at this stage. The goals of rubrics in terms of increasing objectivity and
 reducing bias are great, but as applied to the already-squishy definition
 of "service to the community" it doesn't seem like a good fit here.

 Finally, this is wildly out of scope, but it may make sense to (either
 here or separately) attempt to create a bit more content about what it
 means to be an individual member of the DSF. That information is also
 somewhat lacking, and having it somewhere may encourage more people to
 apply. One possibility could be to link to one of the recent conference
 talks[2][3] on the DSF. But wouldn't want that discussion/information to
 slow down this change.

 cheers,
 Cory

 [1] https://djangochat.com/episodes/read-the-docs-eric-holscher
 [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_e-QoeZwEM
 [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJnaEZkoVTg


> On Thursday, October 27, 2022 at 10:03:48 AM UTC-4
> carlton...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> That would be awesome, yes. Fresh eyes 

Re: Proposal: Clarify individual members page

[Andrew Mshar]

Will do, Carlton.

Tim and Cory, thanks for the suggestions. I'll incorporate those in the PR 
and post here when it's ready. Probably not today, but I should be able to 
open it before the end of the week.

Thanks,
Andrew

On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 10:10:51 AM UTC-5 carlton...@gmail.com 
wrote:

> Hey Andrew. 
>
> I had thought this was a Flatpage (stored in the database) but it's not. 
> The source is here: 
> https://github.com/django/djangoproject.com/blob/main/djangoproject/templates/members/individualmember_list.html
> If you wanted to open a PR suggesting your changes, that would be amazing 
> 朗
>
> Thanks. 
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Carlton
>
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 at 19:51, Tim Allen  wrote:
>
>> I'm of the opinion that if you care enough about Django to investigate 
>> becoming a member of the DSF, that's enough of a qualification - it is just 
>> challenging to formalize that into proper text for the website. Maybe two 
>> changes to encourage people to join:
>>
>>- We could tweak *"Running Django-related events or user groups"  *to 
>> *"Attending 
>>or organizing Django-related events or user groups"*.
>>- Add a sentence to the end of the first stanza: "The following are 
>>Individual Members of the Django Software Foundation. The DSF appoints 
>>individual Members in recognition of their service to the Django 
>> community. 
>>If you would like to join the DSF, we welcome you. Please feel free to 
>>self-nominate for membership."
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Tim
>>
>> On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 11:12:41 AM UTC-5 cory...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Hey Andrew,
>>>
>>> Thanks for drafting this language and I think it looks great. As someone 
>>> who only recently applied after hearing it discussed on an episode of 
>>> Django Chat[1], I'm all for the goals of making it more encouraging and 
>>> accessible and think this is a great step in that direction.
>>>
>>> Here are a few minor thoughts to specific bits:
>>>
>>> Service to the Django community takes many forms. Here are some examples 
 (non-exhaustive) of categories of work performed by members:

>>>
>>> "performed by members" is a little ambiguous as to whether it means 
>>> "this is how we evaluate applicants" vs "this is what you'll do if part of 
>>> the DSF". Since I think the intention is the former it might make sense to 
>>> change to something like:
>>>
>>> *Service to the Django community takes many forms. Here are some 
>>> (non-exhaustive) examples of the categories of work that might qualify as 
>>> "service":*
>>>
>>> Borrowed the list of categories from Andrew Godwin's DEP for the update 
 to the technical board. Per Tim's recommendation, do we want to include 
 anything about the review process?

>>>
>>> When I applied I didn't (and still don't, really) have any visibility 
>>> into the process, so it wasn't a deterrent for me, personally, but I think 
>>> having information certainly wouldn't hurt. My two cents would be good to 
>>> put something in, but not necessarily if it slows down/stalls this change 
>>> if for whatever reason that isn't super easy, since I think this represents 
>>> an improvement on its own.
>>>
>>> Also, I'm a little unsure about that last bit about applying, but I 
 wanted to put something encouraging to folks to apply. Happy to reword 
 that 
 if someone has a better suggestion. I'd prefer that to having a full 
 rubric 
 for membership on this page, primarily because I think it would be very 
 difficult to nail that down because the work that folks perform can be so 
 disparate (must have run X django meetups, or triaged Y tickets). 

>>>
>>> Definitely agree a rubric would cause more problems than it would help 
>>> at this stage. The goals of rubrics in terms of increasing objectivity and 
>>> reducing bias are great, but as applied to the already-squishy definition 
>>> of "service to the community" it doesn't seem like a good fit here.
>>>
>>> Finally, this is wildly out of scope, but it may make sense to (either 
>>> here or separately) attempt to create a bit more content about what it 
>>> means to be an individual member of the DSF. That information is also 
>>> somewhat lacking, and having it somewhere may encourage more people to 
>>> apply. One possibility could be to link to one of the recent conference 
>>> talks[2][3] on the DSF. But wouldn't want that discussion/information to 
>>> slow down this change. 
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>> Cory
>>>
>>> [1] https://djangochat.com/episodes/read-the-docs-eric-holscher 
>>> [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_e-QoeZwEM
>>> [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJnaEZkoVTg
>>>  
>>>
 On Thursday, October 27, 2022 at 10:03:48 AM UTC-4 carlton...@gmail.com 
 wrote:

> That would be awesome, yes. Fresh eyes likely see more clearly :) 
>
> And equally. :) 
>
> Thanks. 
> C. 
>
> On Thursday, 27 October 2022 at 15:28:09 UTC+2 

Re: Proposal: Clarify individual members page

[Carlton Gibson]

Hey Andrew.

I had thought this was a Flatpage (stored in the database) but it's not.
The source is here:
https://github.com/django/djangoproject.com/blob/main/djangoproject/templates/members/individualmember_list.html
If you wanted to open a PR suggesting your changes, that would be amazing 朗

Thanks.

Kind Regards,

Carlton

On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 at 19:51, Tim Allen  wrote:

> I'm of the opinion that if you care enough about Django to investigate
> becoming a member of the DSF, that's enough of a qualification - it is just
> challenging to formalize that into proper text for the website. Maybe two
> changes to encourage people to join:
>
>- We could tweak *"Running Django-related events or user groups"  *to 
> *"Attending
>or organizing Django-related events or user groups"*.
>- Add a sentence to the end of the first stanza: "The following are
>Individual Members of the Django Software Foundation. The DSF appoints
>individual Members in recognition of their service to the Django community.
>If you would like to join the DSF, we welcome you. Please feel free to
>self-nominate for membership."
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim
>
> On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 11:12:41 AM UTC-5 cory...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Hey Andrew,
>>
>> Thanks for drafting this language and I think it looks great. As someone
>> who only recently applied after hearing it discussed on an episode of
>> Django Chat[1], I'm all for the goals of making it more encouraging and
>> accessible and think this is a great step in that direction.
>>
>> Here are a few minor thoughts to specific bits:
>>
>> Service to the Django community takes many forms. Here are some examples
>>> (non-exhaustive) of categories of work performed by members:
>>>
>>
>> "performed by members" is a little ambiguous as to whether it means "this
>> is how we evaluate applicants" vs "this is what you'll do if part of the
>> DSF". Since I think the intention is the former it might make sense to
>> change to something like:
>>
>> *Service to the Django community takes many forms. Here are some
>> (non-exhaustive) examples of the categories of work that might qualify as
>> "service":*
>>
>> Borrowed the list of categories from Andrew Godwin's DEP for the update
>>> to the technical board. Per Tim's recommendation, do we want to include
>>> anything about the review process?
>>>
>>
>> When I applied I didn't (and still don't, really) have any visibility
>> into the process, so it wasn't a deterrent for me, personally, but I think
>> having information certainly wouldn't hurt. My two cents would be good to
>> put something in, but not necessarily if it slows down/stalls this change
>> if for whatever reason that isn't super easy, since I think this represents
>> an improvement on its own.
>>
>> Also, I'm a little unsure about that last bit about applying, but I
>>> wanted to put something encouraging to folks to apply. Happy to reword that
>>> if someone has a better suggestion. I'd prefer that to having a full rubric
>>> for membership on this page, primarily because I think it would be very
>>> difficult to nail that down because the work that folks perform can be so
>>> disparate (must have run X django meetups, or triaged Y tickets).
>>>
>>
>> Definitely agree a rubric would cause more problems than it would help at
>> this stage. The goals of rubrics in terms of increasing objectivity and
>> reducing bias are great, but as applied to the already-squishy definition
>> of "service to the community" it doesn't seem like a good fit here.
>>
>> Finally, this is wildly out of scope, but it may make sense to (either
>> here or separately) attempt to create a bit more content about what it
>> means to be an individual member of the DSF. That information is also
>> somewhat lacking, and having it somewhere may encourage more people to
>> apply. One possibility could be to link to one of the recent conference
>> talks[2][3] on the DSF. But wouldn't want that discussion/information to
>> slow down this change.
>>
>> cheers,
>> Cory
>>
>> [1] https://djangochat.com/episodes/read-the-docs-eric-holscher
>> [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_e-QoeZwEM
>> [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJnaEZkoVTg
>>
>>
>>> On Thursday, October 27, 2022 at 10:03:48 AM UTC-4 carlton...@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>>
 That would be awesome, yes. Fresh eyes likely see more clearly :)

 And equally. :)

 Thanks.
 C.

 On Thursday, 27 October 2022 at 15:28:09 UTC+2 acm...@gmail.com wrote:

> Regarding Carlton's points, that does clarify, and I agree about the
> open ended qualifiers. I also agree with Tim's points. I'm not sure we 
> need
> another membership level (I'm not opposed, though). Rather, I think making
> the current page more transparent will help more folks feel welcome and
> hopefully get more folks (who do fit the criteria) to apply.
>
> If someone wants to draft new language, that would be great. If not, I

Re: Proposal: Clarify individual members page

[Carlton Gibson]

Hey Tim!

> I'm of the opinion that if you care enough about Django to investigate
becoming a member of the DSF, that's enough of a qualification...

OK, so this is the point about whether or not we need another membership
level... — DSF membership has been "The DSF appoints individual Members in
recognition of their service to the Django community" rather than "If you
would like to join the DSF, we welcome you."

I've made this mistake in the past: I've said to people, "Go and
self-nominate" and that's not been accepted because they've been new
members of the community, who didn't pass the *service* bit (even though
*intending* to get involved).

I think this is something that needs to be discussed on the DSF members
list. Could I (cheekily) ask you to open the batting?

Kind Regards,

Carlton

On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 at 19:51, Tim Allen  wrote:

> I'm of the opinion that if you care enough about Django to investigate
> becoming a member of the DSF, that's enough of a qualification - it is just
> challenging to formalize that into proper text for the website. Maybe two
> changes to encourage people to join:
>
>- We could tweak *"Running Django-related events or user groups"  *to 
> *"Attending
>or organizing Django-related events or user groups"*.
>- Add a sentence to the end of the first stanza: "The following are
>Individual Members of the Django Software Foundation. The DSF appoints
>individual Members in recognition of their service to the Django community.
>If you would like to join the DSF, we welcome you. Please feel free to
>self-nominate for membership."
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim
>
> On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 11:12:41 AM UTC-5 cory...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Hey Andrew,
>>
>> Thanks for drafting this language and I think it looks great. As someone
>> who only recently applied after hearing it discussed on an episode of
>> Django Chat[1], I'm all for the goals of making it more encouraging and
>> accessible and think this is a great step in that direction.
>>
>> Here are a few minor thoughts to specific bits:
>>
>> Service to the Django community takes many forms. Here are some examples
>>> (non-exhaustive) of categories of work performed by members:
>>>
>>
>> "performed by members" is a little ambiguous as to whether it means "this
>> is how we evaluate applicants" vs "this is what you'll do if part of the
>> DSF". Since I think the intention is the former it might make sense to
>> change to something like:
>>
>> *Service to the Django community takes many forms. Here are some
>> (non-exhaustive) examples of the categories of work that might qualify as
>> "service":*
>>
>> Borrowed the list of categories from Andrew Godwin's DEP for the update
>>> to the technical board. Per Tim's recommendation, do we want to include
>>> anything about the review process?
>>>
>>
>> When I applied I didn't (and still don't, really) have any visibility
>> into the process, so it wasn't a deterrent for me, personally, but I think
>> having information certainly wouldn't hurt. My two cents would be good to
>> put something in, but not necessarily if it slows down/stalls this change
>> if for whatever reason that isn't super easy, since I think this represents
>> an improvement on its own.
>>
>> Also, I'm a little unsure about that last bit about applying, but I
>>> wanted to put something encouraging to folks to apply. Happy to reword that
>>> if someone has a better suggestion. I'd prefer that to having a full rubric
>>> for membership on this page, primarily because I think it would be very
>>> difficult to nail that down because the work that folks perform can be so
>>> disparate (must have run X django meetups, or triaged Y tickets).
>>>
>>
>> Definitely agree a rubric would cause more problems than it would help at
>> this stage. The goals of rubrics in terms of increasing objectivity and
>> reducing bias are great, but as applied to the already-squishy definition
>> of "service to the community" it doesn't seem like a good fit here.
>>
>> Finally, this is wildly out of scope, but it may make sense to (either
>> here or separately) attempt to create a bit more content about what it
>> means to be an individual member of the DSF. That information is also
>> somewhat lacking, and having it somewhere may encourage more people to
>> apply. One possibility could be to link to one of the recent conference
>> talks[2][3] on the DSF. But wouldn't want that discussion/information to
>> slow down this change.
>>
>> cheers,
>> Cory
>>
>> [1] https://djangochat.com/episodes/read-the-docs-eric-holscher
>> [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_e-QoeZwEM
>> [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJnaEZkoVTg
>>
>>
>>> On Thursday, October 27, 2022 at 10:03:48 AM UTC-4 carlton...@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>>
 That would be awesome, yes. Fresh eyes likely see more clearly :)

 And equally. :)

 Thanks.
 C.

 On Thursday, 27 October 2022 at 15:28:09 UTC+2 acm...@gmail.com wrote:

Re: Proposal: Clarify individual members page

[Tim Allen]

I'm of the opinion that if you care enough about Django to investigate 
becoming a member of the DSF, that's enough of a qualification - it is just 
challenging to formalize that into proper text for the website. Maybe two 
changes to encourage people to join:

   - We could tweak *"Running Django-related events or user groups"  *to 
*"Attending 
   or organizing Django-related events or user groups"*.
   - Add a sentence to the end of the first stanza: "The following are 
   Individual Members of the Django Software Foundation. The DSF appoints 
   individual Members in recognition of their service to the Django community. 
   If you would like to join the DSF, we welcome you. Please feel free to 
   self-nominate for membership."

Regards,

Tim

On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 11:12:41 AM UTC-5 cory...@gmail.com wrote:

> Hey Andrew,
>
> Thanks for drafting this language and I think it looks great. As someone 
> who only recently applied after hearing it discussed on an episode of 
> Django Chat[1], I'm all for the goals of making it more encouraging and 
> accessible and think this is a great step in that direction.
>
> Here are a few minor thoughts to specific bits:
>
> Service to the Django community takes many forms. Here are some examples 
>> (non-exhaustive) of categories of work performed by members:
>>
>
> "performed by members" is a little ambiguous as to whether it means "this 
> is how we evaluate applicants" vs "this is what you'll do if part of the 
> DSF". Since I think the intention is the former it might make sense to 
> change to something like:
>
> *Service to the Django community takes many forms. Here are some 
> (non-exhaustive) examples of the categories of work that might qualify as 
> "service":*
>
> Borrowed the list of categories from Andrew Godwin's DEP for the update to 
>> the technical board. Per Tim's recommendation, do we want to include 
>> anything about the review process?
>>
>
> When I applied I didn't (and still don't, really) have any visibility into 
> the process, so it wasn't a deterrent for me, personally, but I think 
> having information certainly wouldn't hurt. My two cents would be good to 
> put something in, but not necessarily if it slows down/stalls this change 
> if for whatever reason that isn't super easy, since I think this represents 
> an improvement on its own.
>
> Also, I'm a little unsure about that last bit about applying, but I wanted 
>> to put something encouraging to folks to apply. Happy to reword that if 
>> someone has a better suggestion. I'd prefer that to having a full rubric 
>> for membership on this page, primarily because I think it would be very 
>> difficult to nail that down because the work that folks perform can be so 
>> disparate (must have run X django meetups, or triaged Y tickets). 
>>
>
> Definitely agree a rubric would cause more problems than it would help at 
> this stage. The goals of rubrics in terms of increasing objectivity and 
> reducing bias are great, but as applied to the already-squishy definition 
> of "service to the community" it doesn't seem like a good fit here.
>
> Finally, this is wildly out of scope, but it may make sense to (either 
> here or separately) attempt to create a bit more content about what it 
> means to be an individual member of the DSF. That information is also 
> somewhat lacking, and having it somewhere may encourage more people to 
> apply. One possibility could be to link to one of the recent conference 
> talks[2][3] on the DSF. But wouldn't want that discussion/information to 
> slow down this change. 
>
> cheers,
> Cory
>
> [1] https://djangochat.com/episodes/read-the-docs-eric-holscher 
> [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_e-QoeZwEM
> [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJnaEZkoVTg
>  
>
>> On Thursday, October 27, 2022 at 10:03:48 AM UTC-4 carlton...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> That would be awesome, yes. Fresh eyes likely see more clearly :) 
>>>
>>> And equally. :) 
>>>
>>> Thanks. 
>>> C. 
>>>
>>> On Thursday, 27 October 2022 at 15:28:09 UTC+2 acm...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
 Regarding Carlton's points, that does clarify, and I agree about the 
 open ended qualifiers. I also agree with Tim's points. I'm not sure we 
 need 
 another membership level (I'm not opposed, though). Rather, I think making 
 the current page more transparent will help more folks feel welcome and 
 hopefully get more folks (who do fit the criteria) to apply.

 If someone wants to draft new language, that would be great. If not, I 
 may have some time next week to try.

 Thanks,
 Andrew

 P.S. Great meeting both of you at Djangocon last week!
 On Thursday, October 27, 2022 at 7:41:15 AM UTC-4 schill...@gmail.com 
 wrote:

> Hi Carlton,
>
> I think I might have been one of those people mentioning the lack of 
> definition around the membership requirements. It has held me back from 
> applying (finally sent one in 

Re: Proposal: Clarify individual members page

[Cory Zue]

Hey Andrew,

Thanks for drafting this language and I think it looks great. As someone
who only recently applied after hearing it discussed on an episode of
Django Chat[1], I'm all for the goals of making it more encouraging and
accessible and think this is a great step in that direction.

Here are a few minor thoughts to specific bits:

Service to the Django community takes many forms. Here are some examples
> (non-exhaustive) of categories of work performed by members:
>

"performed by members" is a little ambiguous as to whether it means "this
is how we evaluate applicants" vs "this is what you'll do if part of the
DSF". Since I think the intention is the former it might make sense to
change to something like:

*Service to the Django community takes many forms. Here are some
(non-exhaustive) examples of the categories of work that might qualify as
"service":*

Borrowed the list of categories from Andrew Godwin's DEP for the update to
> the technical board. Per Tim's recommendation, do we want to include
> anything about the review process?
>

When I applied I didn't (and still don't, really) have any visibility into
the process, so it wasn't a deterrent for me, personally, but I think
having information certainly wouldn't hurt. My two cents would be good to
put something in, but not necessarily if it slows down/stalls this change
if for whatever reason that isn't super easy, since I think this represents
an improvement on its own.

Also, I'm a little unsure about that last bit about applying, but I wanted
> to put something encouraging to folks to apply. Happy to reword that if
> someone has a better suggestion. I'd prefer that to having a full rubric
> for membership on this page, primarily because I think it would be very
> difficult to nail that down because the work that folks perform can be so
> disparate (must have run X django meetups, or triaged Y tickets).
>

Definitely agree a rubric would cause more problems than it would help at
this stage. The goals of rubrics in terms of increasing objectivity and
reducing bias are great, but as applied to the already-squishy definition
of "service to the community" it doesn't seem like a good fit here.

Finally, this is wildly out of scope, but it may make sense to (either here
or separately) attempt to create a bit more content about what it means to
be an individual member of the DSF. That information is also somewhat
lacking, and having it somewhere may encourage more people to apply. One
possibility could be to link to one of the recent conference talks[2][3] on
the DSF. But wouldn't want that discussion/information to slow down this
change.

cheers,
Cory

[1] https://djangochat.com/episodes/read-the-docs-eric-holscher
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_e-QoeZwEM
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJnaEZkoVTg


> On Thursday, October 27, 2022 at 10:03:48 AM UTC-4 carlton...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>> That would be awesome, yes. Fresh eyes likely see more clearly :)
>>
>> And equally. :)
>>
>> Thanks.
>> C.
>>
>> On Thursday, 27 October 2022 at 15:28:09 UTC+2 acm...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Regarding Carlton's points, that does clarify, and I agree about the
>>> open ended qualifiers. I also agree with Tim's points. I'm not sure we need
>>> another membership level (I'm not opposed, though). Rather, I think making
>>> the current page more transparent will help more folks feel welcome and
>>> hopefully get more folks (who do fit the criteria) to apply.
>>>
>>> If someone wants to draft new language, that would be great. If not, I
>>> may have some time next week to try.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Andrew
>>>
>>> P.S. Great meeting both of you at Djangocon last week!
>>> On Thursday, October 27, 2022 at 7:41:15 AM UTC-4 schill...@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hi Carlton,

 I think I might have been one of those people mentioning the lack of
 definition around the membership requirements. It has held me back from
 applying (finally sent one in yesterday). Given the process's obscurity
 (see below), it's daunting to hit submit.

- The number of potential qualifiers is open ended.
   - This should remain, unaltered. It makes the application more
   daunting, but it's also encouraging in that any contribution is 
 valid.
   - The degree of involvement per qualifier is not defined.
   - This seems like something that could be done. The review
   process must have a rubric of some sort.
   - There is a valid argument to be made that making statements
   about minimum levels of requirement could lead to a person disputing 
 a
   rejection.
   - The review process is not included on the form.
   - Some people will appreciate having more information on how the
   process works.
   - The people who will see this application are not included on
the form.
   - I know the DSF Board is doing at least part of the approvals

Re: Proposal: Clarify individual members page

[Andrew Mshar]

 Suggested new language:

The following are Individual Members of the Django Software Foundation. 
Individual Members are appointed by the DSF in recognition of their service 
to the Django community.

Service to the Django community takes many forms. Here are some examples 
(non-exhaustive) of categories of work performed by members:

   - Code contributions on Django projects or major third-party packages in 
   the Django ecosystem
   - Reviewing pull requests and/or triaging Django project tickets
   - Documentation, tutorials or blog posts related to Django
   - Discussions about Django on the django-developers mailing list or the 
   Django Forum
   - Running Django-related events or user groups

If you know someone who you think should be considered for Individual 
Membership or would like to nominate yourself, please fill out this form 
.
 
If you are unsure if you meet the criteria, but you would like to be a 
member, please do apply, and if not accepted, you will receive a response 
with information about how you can successfully apply in the future.

/end new language.

Borrowed the list of categories from Andrew Godwin's DEP for the update to 
the technical board. Per Tim's recommendation, do we want to include 
anything about the review process?

Also, I'm a little unsure about that last bit about applying, but I wanted 
to put something encouraging to folks to apply. Happy to reword that if 
someone has a better suggestion. I'd prefer that to having a full rubric 
for membership on this page, primarily because I think it would be very 
difficult to nail that down because the work that folks perform can be so 
disparate (must have run X django meetups, or triaged Y tickets). 

Thanks,
Andrew

On Thursday, October 27, 2022 at 10:03:48 AM UTC-4 carlton...@gmail.com 
wrote:

> That would be awesome, yes. Fresh eyes likely see more clearly :) 
>
> And equally. :) 
>
> Thanks. 
> C. 
>
> On Thursday, 27 October 2022 at 15:28:09 UTC+2 acm...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Regarding Carlton's points, that does clarify, and I agree about the open 
>> ended qualifiers. I also agree with Tim's points. I'm not sure we need 
>> another membership level (I'm not opposed, though). Rather, I think making 
>> the current page more transparent will help more folks feel welcome and 
>> hopefully get more folks (who do fit the criteria) to apply.
>>
>> If someone wants to draft new language, that would be great. If not, I 
>> may have some time next week to try.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Andrew
>>
>> P.S. Great meeting both of you at Djangocon last week!
>> On Thursday, October 27, 2022 at 7:41:15 AM UTC-4 schill...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Carlton,
>>>
>>> I think I might have been one of those people mentioning the lack of 
>>> definition around the membership requirements. It has held me back from 
>>> applying (finally sent one in yesterday). Given the process's obscurity 
>>> (see below), it's daunting to hit submit.
>>>
>>>- The number of potential qualifiers is open ended.
>>>   - This should remain, unaltered. It makes the application more 
>>>   daunting, but it's also encouraging in that any contribution is valid.
>>>   - The degree of involvement per qualifier is not defined.
>>>   - This seems like something that could be done. The review 
>>>   process must have a rubric of some sort.
>>>   - There is a valid argument to be made that making statements 
>>>   about minimum levels of requirement could lead to a person disputing 
>>> a 
>>>   rejection.
>>>   - The review process is not included on the form.
>>>   - Some people will appreciate having more information on how the 
>>>   process works.
>>>   - The people who will see this application are not included on 
>>>the form.
>>>   - I know the DSF Board is doing at least part of the approvals (I 
>>>   see it in the minutes), but I'm still unsure of who will see the 
>>>   application itself. If it's the broader DSF membership, it's 
>>> uncomfortable 
>>>   to send all of you an advertisement about my involvement in your/our 
>>>   community.
>>>   - There's nothing to help a person decide how to make the 
>>>decision to put yourself out there.
>>>   - Until San Diego I did not have a personal relationship with any 
>>>   DSF member, which meant I never sent a DM to an existing DSF member 
>>> to ask 
>>>   what the process was like for them or if I was qualified.
>>>
>>>
>>> I think if the form itself were a bit more transparent people will feel 
>>> more comfortable sending in an application.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Tim
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 2:19 AM Carlton Gibson  
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hi Andrew. 

 Yes. Good question. I'm not immediately sure if there is a better 
 description of DSF membership around. 樂

 It's meant 

Re: Proposal: Clarify individual members page

[Carlton Gibson]

That would be awesome, yes. Fresh eyes likely see more clearly :) 

And equally. :) 

Thanks. 
C. 

On Thursday, 27 October 2022 at 15:28:09 UTC+2 acm...@gmail.com wrote:

> Regarding Carlton's points, that does clarify, and I agree about the open 
> ended qualifiers. I also agree with Tim's points. I'm not sure we need 
> another membership level (I'm not opposed, though). Rather, I think making 
> the current page more transparent will help more folks feel welcome and 
> hopefully get more folks (who do fit the criteria) to apply.
>
> If someone wants to draft new language, that would be great. If not, I may 
> have some time next week to try.
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew
>
> P.S. Great meeting both of you at Djangocon last week!
> On Thursday, October 27, 2022 at 7:41:15 AM UTC-4 schill...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Carlton,
>>
>> I think I might have been one of those people mentioning the lack of 
>> definition around the membership requirements. It has held me back from 
>> applying (finally sent one in yesterday). Given the process's obscurity 
>> (see below), it's daunting to hit submit.
>>
>>- The number of potential qualifiers is open ended.
>>   - This should remain, unaltered. It makes the application more 
>>   daunting, but it's also encouraging in that any contribution is valid.
>>   - The degree of involvement per qualifier is not defined.
>>   - This seems like something that could be done. The review process 
>>   must have a rubric of some sort.
>>   - There is a valid argument to be made that making statements 
>>   about minimum levels of requirement could lead to a person disputing a 
>>   rejection.
>>   - The review process is not included on the form.
>>   - Some people will appreciate having more information on how the 
>>   process works.
>>   - The people who will see this application are not included on the 
>>form.
>>   - I know the DSF Board is doing at least part of the approvals (I 
>>   see it in the minutes), but I'm still unsure of who will see the 
>>   application itself. If it's the broader DSF membership, it's 
>> uncomfortable 
>>   to send all of you an advertisement about my involvement in your/our 
>>   community.
>>   - There's nothing to help a person decide how to make the decision 
>>to put yourself out there.
>>   - Until San Diego I did not have a personal relationship with any 
>>   DSF member, which meant I never sent a DM to an existing DSF member to 
>> ask 
>>   what the process was like for them or if I was qualified.
>>
>>
>> I think if the form itself were a bit more transparent people will feel 
>> more comfortable sending in an application.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Tim
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 2:19 AM Carlton Gibson  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Andrew. 
>>>
>>> Yes. Good question. I'm not immediately sure if there is a better 
>>> description of DSF membership around. 樂
>>>
>>> It's meant to be a recognition of contribution to the community, be that 
>>> to the code in django/django, maintaining a  third-party package, 
>>> organising a DjangoCon or community meetup, mentoring, ... — the dots there 
>>> are that the list incompletable, not simply because I'm too lazy to type, 
>>> if that makes sense  
>>> (These tie roughly to the suggested points for eligibility for being on 
>>> the Steering Committee in Andrew's proposal 
>>>  except without the "and 
>>> you're still engaged" requirement that's also there — once earned, it's 
>>> yours.) 
>>>
>>> There was some discussion of this at both recent DjangoCons... — there's 
>>> a bit of a gap for people, perhaps like yourself, first getting involved. 
>>> One idea was a more open membership level that anyone interested could take 
>>> up, that would allow easier communication if nothing else. I don't know how 
>>> those discussions will turn out, but stay tuned 
>>>
>>> I hope that clarifies a litte? 
>>>
>>> In any case, Welcome aboard! ⛵️ :) Please reach out if you need any 
>>> help. 
>>>
>>> Kind Regards,
>>>
>>> Carlton
>>>
>>> On Wed, 26 Oct 2022 at 15:48, Andrew Mshar  wrote:
>>>
 Along the lines of discussions about redefining requirements for board 
 seats (e.g. https://groups.google.com/g/django-developers/c/FbNaAq3rz6c), 
 I think it would be helpful to clarify what we want from individual 
 members 
 of the DSF here:

 https://www.djangoproject.com/foundation/individual-members/

 As a non-member who recently made my first contribution to Django, I 
 looked at that page and thought: is that enough for me to be a member? I'm 
 not particularly concerned about my own membership, but rather, this made 
 me realize that the lack of clarity may prevent others from joining who 
 otherwise should.

 Is there anywhere that we have a more clear outline of what we expect 
 from members both before they 

Re: Proposal: Clarify individual members page

[Andrew Mshar]

Regarding Carlton's points, that does clarify, and I agree about the open 
ended qualifiers. I also agree with Tim's points. I'm not sure we need 
another membership level (I'm not opposed, though). Rather, I think making 
the current page more transparent will help more folks feel welcome and 
hopefully get more folks (who do fit the criteria) to apply.

If someone wants to draft new language, that would be great. If not, I may 
have some time next week to try.

Thanks,
Andrew

P.S. Great meeting both of you at Djangocon last week!
On Thursday, October 27, 2022 at 7:41:15 AM UTC-4 schill...@gmail.com wrote:

> Hi Carlton,
>
> I think I might have been one of those people mentioning the lack of 
> definition around the membership requirements. It has held me back from 
> applying (finally sent one in yesterday). Given the process's obscurity 
> (see below), it's daunting to hit submit.
>
>- The number of potential qualifiers is open ended.
>   - This should remain, unaltered. It makes the application more 
>   daunting, but it's also encouraging in that any contribution is valid.
>   - The degree of involvement per qualifier is not defined.
>   - This seems like something that could be done. The review process 
>   must have a rubric of some sort.
>   - There is a valid argument to be made that making statements about 
>   minimum levels of requirement could lead to a person disputing a 
> rejection.
>   - The review process is not included on the form.
>   - Some people will appreciate having more information on how the 
>   process works.
>   - The people who will see this application are not included on the 
>form.
>   - I know the DSF Board is doing at least part of the approvals (I 
>   see it in the minutes), but I'm still unsure of who will see the 
>   application itself. If it's the broader DSF membership, it's 
> uncomfortable 
>   to send all of you an advertisement about my involvement in your/our 
>   community.
>   - There's nothing to help a person decide how to make the decision 
>to put yourself out there.
>   - Until San Diego I did not have a personal relationship with any 
>   DSF member, which meant I never sent a DM to an existing DSF member to 
> ask 
>   what the process was like for them or if I was qualified.
>
>
> I think if the form itself were a bit more transparent people will feel 
> more comfortable sending in an application.
>
> Thanks,
> Tim
>
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 2:19 AM Carlton Gibson  
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Andrew. 
>>
>> Yes. Good question. I'm not immediately sure if there is a better 
>> description of DSF membership around. 樂
>>
>> It's meant to be a recognition of contribution to the community, be that 
>> to the code in django/django, maintaining a  third-party package, 
>> organising a DjangoCon or community meetup, mentoring, ... — the dots there 
>> are that the list incompletable, not simply because I'm too lazy to type, 
>> if that makes sense  
>> (These tie roughly to the suggested points for eligibility for being on 
>> the Steering Committee in Andrew's proposal 
>>  except without the "and 
>> you're still engaged" requirement that's also there — once earned, it's 
>> yours.) 
>>
>> There was some discussion of this at both recent DjangoCons... — there's 
>> a bit of a gap for people, perhaps like yourself, first getting involved. 
>> One idea was a more open membership level that anyone interested could take 
>> up, that would allow easier communication if nothing else. I don't know how 
>> those discussions will turn out, but stay tuned 
>>
>> I hope that clarifies a litte? 
>>
>> In any case, Welcome aboard! ⛵️ :) Please reach out if you need any help. 
>>
>> Kind Regards,
>>
>> Carlton
>>
>> On Wed, 26 Oct 2022 at 15:48, Andrew Mshar  wrote:
>>
>>> Along the lines of discussions about redefining requirements for board 
>>> seats (e.g. https://groups.google.com/g/django-developers/c/FbNaAq3rz6c), 
>>> I think it would be helpful to clarify what we want from individual members 
>>> of the DSF here:
>>>
>>> https://www.djangoproject.com/foundation/individual-members/
>>>
>>> As a non-member who recently made my first contribution to Django, I 
>>> looked at that page and thought: is that enough for me to be a member? I'm 
>>> not particularly concerned about my own membership, but rather, this made 
>>> me realize that the lack of clarity may prevent others from joining who 
>>> otherwise should.
>>>
>>> Is there anywhere that we have a more clear outline of what we expect 
>>> from members both before they join and after? If not, could we have that 
>>> discussion here to clarify for future members?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Andrew
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>>> Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this 

Re: Proposal: Clarify individual members page

[Tim Schilling]

Hi Carlton,

I think I might have been one of those people mentioning the lack of
definition around the membership requirements. It has held me back from
applying (finally sent one in yesterday). Given the process's obscurity
(see below), it's daunting to hit submit.

   - The number of potential qualifiers is open ended.
  - This should remain, unaltered. It makes the application more
  daunting, but it's also encouraging in that any contribution is valid.
  - The degree of involvement per qualifier is not defined.
  - This seems like something that could be done. The review process
  must have a rubric of some sort.
  - There is a valid argument to be made that making statements about
  minimum levels of requirement could lead to a person disputing a
rejection.
  - The review process is not included on the form.
  - Some people will appreciate having more information on how the
  process works.
  - The people who will see this application are not included on the
   form.
  - I know the DSF Board is doing at least part of the approvals (I see
  it in the minutes), but I'm still unsure of who will see the application
  itself. If it's the broader DSF membership, it's uncomfortable
to send all
  of you an advertisement about my involvement in your/our community.
  - There's nothing to help a person decide how to make the decision to
   put yourself out there.
  - Until San Diego I did not have a personal relationship with any DSF
  member, which meant I never sent a DM to an existing DSF member
to ask what
  the process was like for them or if I was qualified.


I think if the form itself were a bit more transparent people will feel
more comfortable sending in an application.

Thanks,
Tim

On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 2:19 AM Carlton Gibson 
wrote:

> Hi Andrew.
>
> Yes. Good question. I'm not immediately sure if there is a better
> description of DSF membership around. 樂
>
> It's meant to be a recognition of contribution to the community, be that
> to the code in django/django, maintaining a  third-party package,
> organising a DjangoCon or community meetup, mentoring, ... — the dots there
> are that the list incompletable, not simply because I'm too lazy to type,
> if that makes sense 
> (These tie roughly to the suggested points for eligibility for being on
> the Steering Committee in Andrew's proposal
>  except without the "and
> you're still engaged" requirement that's also there — once earned, it's
> yours.)
>
> There was some discussion of this at both recent DjangoCons... — there's a
> bit of a gap for people, perhaps like yourself, first getting involved. One
> idea was a more open membership level that anyone interested could take up,
> that would allow easier communication if nothing else. I don't know how
> those discussions will turn out, but stay tuned 
>
> I hope that clarifies a litte?
>
> In any case, Welcome aboard! ⛵️ :) Please reach out if you need any help.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Carlton
>
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2022 at 15:48, Andrew Mshar  wrote:
>
>> Along the lines of discussions about redefining requirements for board
>> seats (e.g. https://groups.google.com/g/django-developers/c/FbNaAq3rz6c),
>> I think it would be helpful to clarify what we want from individual members
>> of the DSF here:
>>
>> https://www.djangoproject.com/foundation/individual-members/
>>
>> As a non-member who recently made my first contribution to Django, I
>> looked at that page and thought: is that enough for me to be a member? I'm
>> not particularly concerned about my own membership, but rather, this made
>> me realize that the lack of clarity may prevent others from joining who
>> otherwise should.
>>
>> Is there anywhere that we have a more clear outline of what we expect
>> from members both before they join and after? If not, could we have that
>> discussion here to clarify for future members?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Andrew
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/824f1e56-64f1-44e4-9612-dc121c5d3efcn%40googlegroups.com
>> 
>> .
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> 

Re: Proposal: Clarify individual members page

[Carlton Gibson]

Hi Andrew.

Yes. Good question. I'm not immediately sure if there is a better
description of DSF membership around. 樂

It's meant to be a recognition of contribution to the community, be that to
the code in django/django, maintaining a  third-party package,
organising a DjangoCon or community meetup, mentoring, ... — the dots there
are that the list incompletable, not simply because I'm too lazy to type,
if that makes sense 
(These tie roughly to the suggested points for eligibility for being on the
Steering Committee in Andrew's proposal
 except without the "and
you're still engaged" requirement that's also there — once earned, it's
yours.)

There was some discussion of this at both recent DjangoCons... — there's a
bit of a gap for people, perhaps like yourself, first getting involved. One
idea was a more open membership level that anyone interested could take up,
that would allow easier communication if nothing else. I don't know how
those discussions will turn out, but stay tuned 

I hope that clarifies a litte?

In any case, Welcome aboard! ⛵️ :) Please reach out if you need any help.

Kind Regards,

Carlton

On Wed, 26 Oct 2022 at 15:48, Andrew Mshar  wrote:

> Along the lines of discussions about redefining requirements for board
> seats (e.g. https://groups.google.com/g/django-developers/c/FbNaAq3rz6c),
> I think it would be helpful to clarify what we want from individual members
> of the DSF here:
>
> https://www.djangoproject.com/foundation/individual-members/
>
> As a non-member who recently made my first contribution to Django, I
> looked at that page and thought: is that enough for me to be a member? I'm
> not particularly concerned about my own membership, but rather, this made
> me realize that the lack of clarity may prevent others from joining who
> otherwise should.
>
> Is there anywhere that we have a more clear outline of what we expect from
> members both before they join and after? If not, could we have that
> discussion here to clarify for future members?
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/824f1e56-64f1-44e4-9612-dc121c5d3efcn%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAJwKpySfQfgtpoLnCYcwfsaL7g1kgOZU%2BPvKyvggm0UT%3DLpiWg%40mail.gmail.com.

Proposal: Clarify individual members page

[Andrew Mshar]

Along the lines of discussions about redefining requirements for board 
seats (e.g. https://groups.google.com/g/django-developers/c/FbNaAq3rz6c), I 
think it would be helpful to clarify what we want from individual members 
of the DSF here:

https://www.djangoproject.com/foundation/individual-members/

As a non-member who recently made my first contribution to Django, I looked 
at that page and thought: is that enough for me to be a member? I'm not 
particularly concerned about my own membership, but rather, this made me 
realize that the lack of clarity may prevent others from joining who 
otherwise should.

Is there anywhere that we have a more clear outline of what we expect from 
members both before they join and after? If not, could we have that 
discussion here to clarify for future members?

Thanks,
Andrew

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/824f1e56-64f1-44e4-9612-dc121c5d3efcn%40googlegroups.com.