Re: Membership Committee meeting minutes
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010, Vincent Untz wrote: Hi, Le samedi 13 mars 2010, à 15:51 +0100, Andrea Veri a écrit : hi, the GNOME Membership Committee had its first meeting exactly two days ago (on 11/03/2010) and here they come all the meeting's details: Thanks for sharing the minutes of this meeting! It's a good way to advertize your work :-) [...] * contact the Board of Directors and see if MC have autonomy to change the number of vouchers required for an application. (and also if we have the possibility to modify the foundation.gnome.org website) Yes, you can change the number of vouchers required for an application. And generally, unless you break stuff, you should probabably feel free to update the foundation website :-) * update the foundation.gnome.org website to make it more close to how gnome.org looks like. (we will need the Website / Art team to help us out a bit with this task) -- this needs to be forwarded to the Board to check if their fine with this. (Bruno prepared a mail already) The wgo look and feel will change soon, though. I'm not sure it's worth the effort to update foundation.gnome.org now to what will be old soon. * check with Tobias about elections scripts et all, this will be discussed separately on our mailing list in the near future. (the elections need to end before GUADEC in June / July) The next board should be known (and confirmed) for July 1st, since the current board has been elected for a period ending on June 30th. Thanks, Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list -- .''`. : :' : Andrea Veri a...@debian.org, `. `'a...@ubuntu.com, `- a...@gnome.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Membership Committee meeting minutes
Hi, Le samedi 13 mars 2010, à 15:51 +0100, Andrea Veri a écrit : hi, the GNOME Membership Committee had its first meeting exactly two days ago (on 11/03/2010) and here they come all the meeting's details: Thanks for sharing the minutes of this meeting! It's a good way to advertize your work :-) [...] * contact the Board of Directors and see if MC have autonomy to change the number of vouchers required for an application. (and also if we have the possibility to modify the foundation.gnome.org website) Yes, you can change the number of vouchers required for an application. And generally, unless you break stuff, you should probabably feel free to update the foundation website :-) * update the foundation.gnome.org website to make it more close to how gnome.org looks like. (we will need the Website / Art team to help us out a bit with this task) -- this needs to be forwarded to the Board to check if their fine with this. (Bruno prepared a mail already) The wgo look and feel will change soon, though. I'm not sure it's worth the effort to update foundation.gnome.org now to what will be old soon. * check with Tobias about elections scripts et all, this will be discussed separately on our mailing list in the near future. (the elections need to end before GUADEC in June / July) The next board should be known (and confirmed) for July 1st, since the current board has been elected for a period ending on June 30th. Thanks, Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: membership
Hi Andreas, Andreas J. Guelzow wrote: the membership page at http://foundation.gnome.org/membership/ unfortunately does not indicate the procedure to follow to cease being a foundation member. Could anybody indicate to me please how to do that? There are two options - wait, and 2 years after becoming a member, don't renew, or send a mail to the membership committee, and they will remove you from the list of members. Mind me asking why you want to leave the foundation? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: membership
On Tue, 2006-05-12 at 12:44 +0100, Dave Neary wrote: Hi Andreas, Andreas J. Guelzow wrote: the membership page at http://foundation.gnome.org/membership/ unfortunately does not indicate the procedure to follow to cease being a foundation member. Could anybody indicate to me please how to do that? There are two options - wait, and 2 years after becoming a member, don't renew, or send a mail to the membership committee, and they will remove you from the list of members. Thanks Dave! I'll send a message to the membership committee. Mind me asking why you want to leave the foundation? I don't mind at all. The reason is really a combination of many. Primarily, over the last years the philosophy of the GNOME community has shown itself to be incompatible with my philosophy. As a side effect, the GNOME desktop has become, in many instances, inappropriate for our usage. When I look at the list of candidates for the current board elections and find that I can't justify to vote for any of the candidates, it is quite obvious that for me to remain in the foundation is inappropriate. Andreas -- Prof. Dr. Andreas J. Guelzow Dept. of Mathematical Computing Sciences Concordia University College of Alberta ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: membership
Could you describe your philosophy and your computer usage? It would help seeing where are we changing and perhaps failing. A description of the candidate profile you were expecting might help other people present candidacy next year. Thank you 2006/12/5, Andreas J. Guelzow [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I don't mind at all. The reason is really a combination of many. Primarily, over the last years the philosophy of the GNOME community has shown itself to be incompatible with my philosophy. As a side effect, the GNOME desktop has become, in many instances, inappropriate for our usage. -- Quim Gil /// http://desdeamericaconamor.org ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Membership Committee Meeting Minutes
Em Qua, 2006-08-02 às 16:42 +0300, Baris Cicek escreveu: * Sankharshan needed to get account for Mango, it was waiting for a while because sysadmin team was busy with couple of other things. (He manged to get it.) He got an e-mail with credentials to log into Mango at the same time as all the other Membership Committee members. I think you mean he managed to find it in his mailbox. * We need a backup policy for foundation database. If sysadmin team does not have a backup policy we need to find a solution. (I'm not quite sure if token information would harm anonymity of elections if we store backups in CVS) (Baris will talk with sysadmin team and ask Vincent about it) Mostly everything is backed up, and that certainly includes MySQL databases, among which is the Foundation one. Yours, Guilherme de S. Pastore The GNOME Sysadmin Team ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Membership Committee Mailing List Archives
Hi, Calum Benson wrote: On 10 Jul 2006, at 19:34, David Neary wrote: The reference mails can perhaps go off-list, but honestly I can't think why that might happen - in general, if you're replying it's to give a good reference, and if the reference would be bad, you don't reply. Hmm... so if a dozen people have bad things to say about someone, and only a couple have good things to say about them, we only get to see the good ones and the application is accepted? It all depends on the scope of the question. For a GNOME Foundation membership request, the question is has this person donated considerably more time and effort to GNOME than could normally be expected of a user? - filing one bugzilla bug is a no, writing a QT application is a no, I think writing a GTK+ application would probably qualify as a yes, being a volunteer during a GUADEC would be a yes, etc. At what stage of the process does the question of whether the person is a good contributor or a bad contributor come into play? Should it come into play at all? Cheers, Dave. -- David Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Membership Committee Mailing List Archives
On 11 Jul 2006, at 13:13, Dave Neary wrote: Calum Benson wrote: Hmm... so if a dozen people have bad things to say about someone, and only a couple have good things to say about them, we only get to see the good ones and the application is accepted? It all depends on the scope of the question. For a GNOME Foundation membership request, the question is has this person donated considerably more time and effort to GNOME than could normally be expected of a user? - filing one bugzilla bug is a no, writing a QT application is a no, I think writing a GTK+ application would probably qualify as a yes, being a volunteer during a GUADEC would be a yes, etc. At what stage of the process does the question of whether the person is a good contributor or a bad contributor come into play? Should it come into play at all? It's a fair question, and not one I'd pretend to be qualified to answer... I guess my point is that, in general, any system of feedback seems somewhat flawed to me if you're only expected to give positive feedback, and remain silent otherwise. (If anything, it's the opposite of how most feedback systems work: you usually have to actively voice opposition; silence tends to imply tacit acceptance.) Cheeri, Calum. -- CALUM BENSON, Usability Engineer Sun Microsystems Ireland mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Java Desktop System Team http://blogs.sun.com/calum +353 1 819 9771 Any opinions are personal and not necessarily those of Sun Microsystems ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Membership Committee Mailing List Archives
On 10 Jul 2006, at 19:34, David Neary wrote: The reference mails can perhaps go off-list, but honestly I can't think why that might happen - in general, if you're replying it's to give a good reference, and if the reference would be bad, you don't reply. Hmm... so if a dozen people have bad things to say about someone, and only a couple have good things to say about them, we only get to see the good ones and the application is accepted? Cheeri, Calum. -- CALUM BENSON, Usability Engineer Sun Microsystems Ireland mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Java Desktop System Team http://blogs.sun.com/calum +353 1 819 9771 Any opinions are personal and not necessarily those of Sun Microsystems ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Membership Committee Mailing List Archives
Seems like consensus for this topic is to keep list public. Thank you all for your comments. On Mon, 2006-07-10 at 20:34 +0200, David Neary wrote: Hi, Baris Cicek wrote: Today Behdad asked about why private list like membership-committee mailing list is public. We're using this list for asking information about applications, and even though vast majority of the responses are positive, there can be negative ones as well. For that reason, it's not good to make them public which might affect honest responses from reference people. My own opinion is to keep dialog about applications to be private. But I would like to know if there're some concerns related with decision. Any applicant whom his/her application is denied can easily ask the reason, and we can show it. Even with private list, we can keep transparency. I feel strongly that the membership list should be public. Applications, and the reasons for their rejection, should be visible to all. The reference mails can perhaps go off-list, but honestly I can't think why that might happen - in general, if you're replying it's to give a good reference, and if the reference would be bad, you don't reply. Cheers, Dave. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Membership Committee Mailing List Archives
Hi, Baris Cicek wrote: Today Behdad asked about why private list like membership-committee mailing list is public. We're using this list for asking information about applications, and even though vast majority of the responses are positive, there can be negative ones as well. For that reason, it's not good to make them public which might affect honest responses from reference people. My own opinion is to keep dialog about applications to be private. But I would like to know if there're some concerns related with decision. Any applicant whom his/her application is denied can easily ask the reason, and we can show it. Even with private list, we can keep transparency. I feel strongly that the membership list should be public. Applications, and the reasons for their rejection, should be visible to all. The reference mails can perhaps go off-list, but honestly I can't think why that might happen - in general, if you're replying it's to give a good reference, and if the reference would be bad, you don't reply. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lyon, France ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Membership drive
On 7/29/05, Dave Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Luis Villa a écrit : The titular membership is only a proxy for the actual, important membership, since we need one for voting for the board. I've yet to see any other useful reason to have a 'membership' list. So the keyu question then is what does the GNOME Foundation do for its members? You seem to be saying that since the members' only purpose is to vote, we don't need a huge number, A huge number would be wonderful, but it should be because people want to be involved, not because we think a huge number validates what we do. and since what the foundation does is generally for the community, and not for the foundation membership, we're always going to be more or less irrelevant to our membership. All members are also members of the community, so if we are relevant to the community, we are relevant to our membership. The only reason to become a GNOME Foundation member, then, is to have a say in who gets on the board. Is that what you're saying? That is basically it, yes. Luis ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Membership drive
Hi, Luis Villa wrote: Given that the membership is charged with making important decisions about the direction of the foundation and the stewardship of the foundation's resources, I'm fairly skeptical about any move to increase membership for the sake of increased membership. So, why are we seeking to increase the number of members, exactly? One of the problems the foundation has is explaining how being a foundation member is relevant. If too many GNOME participants aren't members, then the foundation (and notably, the board, elected by the foundation members) isn't going to act in a way that reflects the wishes of the majority of GNOME contributors, making the foundatioon irrelevant. Another thing is that foundation membership is kind of the only metric we have for measuring whether someone is part of GNOME or not, and at present it's not a particularly good metric. The rest of your email seems to assume 'more members' == 'good', and I'm not sure I follow that, given that much of the current membership is apathetic and uninvolved[1] and increasing the numbers doesn't actually solve that. I think that increasing membership will help with the apathy and lack of involvement. I think that the lack of involvement is actually a perception problem rather than a real problem (do you have to vote in an annual election or present yourself as a candidate of the board to be involved?). I'd prefer we figure out why we have membership (besides the obvious legal/voting reasons), what we offer the membership, and what the membership offers 'us' (the community, the foundation, etc.) [...] Going back to the beginning, the goals of the foundation as laid out in the charter: The charter says: The foundation should not be exclusionary or elitist. Every GNOME contributor, however small his or her contribution, must have the opportunity to participate in determining the direction and actions of the project. But then we define the membership... The charter says: The Membership will be a large body made up of people who have made a contribution to any module which is part of GNOME... [...] The membership will have two responsibilities: electing the Board of Directors, and issuing popular referenda on any issue under the jurisdiction of the foundation, at any time So the foundation is everyone contributing to GNOME, but the only things we require of our membership is that they vote. But then there's the section about who does what. The charter says: The board is the primary decision-making body of the GNOME foundation. It is responsible for ratifying all decisions the GNOME foundation makes. [...] The Advisory Board will have no decision-making ability [...] And then almost a throw-away phrase, perhaps the most important in the document: From time to time, ad-hoc committees may be formed, formally or informally, either by the board or the membership So the foundation is everyone who contributes to GNOME, the board is responsible for ratifying decisions which are made by the foundation, but anyone can participate in the making of those decisions. I agree that the board has been a little too distant from the foundation membership, particularly with respect to the openness criteria we started with in the charter, but the key point is that the foundation *is* its membership. The board is not the foundation. So more members means better foundation, almost by definition, since we will have more input and participation from community members. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lyon, France ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Membership drive
On 7/24/05, David Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Luis Villa wrote: Given that the membership is charged with making important decisions about the direction of the foundation and the stewardship of the foundation's resources, I'm fairly skeptical about any move to increase membership for the sake of increased membership. So, why are we seeking to increase the number of members, exactly? One of the problems the foundation has is explaining how being a foundation member is relevant. If too many GNOME participants aren't members, then the foundation (and notably, the board, elected by the foundation members) isn't going to act in a way that reflects the wishes of the majority of GNOME contributors, making the foundatioon irrelevant. Another thing is that foundation membership is kind of the only metric we have for measuring whether someone is part of GNOME or not, and at present it's not a particularly good metric. The metric for whether or not someone is 'part of GNOME' is, and should be, fluid, and based around participation, not titular membership in an organization. The titular membership is only a proxy for the actual, important membership, since we need one for voting for the board. I've yet to see any other useful reason to have a 'membership' list. snip lots of other stuff that I don't think, in the end, answer the question I think part of the problem is that you're confusing 'healthy community' with 'healthy foundation.'[1] The community itself is quite healthy, I think, and if the foundation is not, then maybe the problem is that the foundation is not important to the goals of the foundation, and the solution is reducing and redefining the role of the foundation, instead of attempting to falsely inflate it's significance in ways that are distortionary to the meaning and goals of the community. Let me put it another way: what problems does our community have that can be solved *only* by a foundation with a fixed, defined membership list? Are any of those problems solved better with a bigger membership? (I'd suggest that making the membership more 'representative' is noble, but unless it can be shown that a more representative membership would change voting or participation patterns, it's not actually solving any problems.) Let me be clear- I'm not *against* increased membership, per se; in particular being more representative is probably worthwhile. But I'd much prefer to (1) work on increasing the size of the community[2] and (2) work on making the foundation more relevant to said community. If those two happen, then foundation membership will increase, and increase naturally, not because we thought our numbers were bad. Luis [1] you cited the marketing team (well, communication/advocacy/marketing) on your blog as proof of success of *the foundation*. I think that's insane :) The marketing team is proof of success of the *community*, and would exist with or without the foundation. Arguably, by privileging certain individuals in ways not related to their actual participation, the marketing team's existence and activity have been *impeded* by the foundation, if anything. [2] go gnome-women! go doc team! go marketing team (esp. the folks working on the website)! on dancer! on dasher! and prancer and vixen! ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Membership drive
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Dave Neary wrote: Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 17:51:58 +0200 From: Dave Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: foundation-list@gnome.org Subject: Membership drive Hi, I don't know who the best people to talk to about this are, but it would be great to have a membership drive for the foundation in September or October. Would that be before or after the elections? Before would be better I think but it might put a lot of pressure on the membership committee and it would make the task of informing the electorate that little bit more difficult. Membership of the foundation has been stagnant, and I know that lots of people who are elligible have never asked to join (GIMP developers come to mind). What can be done (and by whom) to make membership more attractive? I've always found it curious how the GNU Image Manipulation Program sometimes publicallly distances itself from Gnome. I suspect the technical aspects of maintaining a portable Gtk only application is not the whole answer but it certainly didn't help that Gnome used to be widely perceived as a more techical definition based primarly on a set of libraries applications used. Having moved from Gnome 1 to Gnome 2 and gradually moving away from Bonobo (or redeveloping/renewing it) I think most Gnome developers now fully appreciate the value of keeping their software easy to port and making sure any platform specific code is cleanly seperable. And then there is the (in)formal(?) commitment of Gnome to being portable and reaching a wider audience. It would be great if all kinds of Gtk developers could be made to feel more like they were part of Gnome too. Frankly I'd love to see a more inclusive and modern definition of what Gnome means, one that reaches out to projects like the GIMP, GPE, XCFE and make them want to define themselves by our common interests rather than our differences. Can we move away from the can I be in your club model to the come join us model, where existing members can invite people to join, rather than the person needing to ask? ... any club that would have me as a member ... Why is it that people who identify as GNOME contributors aren't in the foundation? Membership of the Foundation entitles developers to voting rights which many developers are not particularly interested in so they do not bother. The technical benefits of working with Gnome and following our Guidelines and Standards do not (and nor should they) require membership. Inviting all kinds of Gtk developers certainly sounds like a good idea to me. The network effect of having developers feel welcomed and part of our community is in many ways more helpful to us all. (So inviting X.org developers to join might be worth considering.) There is also the distinct possibility that it never occured to people they were entitled to be a part of the Gnome Foundation, especially if they were not contributing code to any of the core Gnome applications. In summary I give this suggestion my +1 Sincerely Alan Horkan Inkscape http://inkscape.org Abiword http://www.abisource.com Dia http://gnome.org/projects/dia/ Open Clip Art http://OpenClipArt.org Alan's Diary http://advogato.org/person/AlanHorkan/ ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Membership drive
Hi Dave, On Thu, July 21, 2005 17:51, Dave Neary said: Hi, I don't know who the best people to talk to about this are, but it would be great to have a membership drive for the foundation in September or October. Membership of the foundation has been stagnant, and I know that lots of people who are elligible have never asked to join (GIMP developers come to mind). What can be done (and by whom) to make membership more attractive? Can we move away from the can I be in your club model to the come join us model, where existing members can invite people to join, rather than the person needing to ask? Why is it that people who identify as GNOME contributors aren't in the foundation? This would be a good idea. But I'd first like to know why a lot of GNOME Foundation members do not vote during the elections/referenda. I asked the questions in January 2004 [1], but I did not get a lot of answers (3 or 4, iirc). What do people expect from being member of the Foundation? Sometimes, I have the feeling that's I can have a @gnome.org address. And nothing else. Why? How can we change it? (or am I the only one who thinks we should try to change this?) Vincent [1] http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2004-January/msg2.html -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Membership drive
On Thu, July 21, 2005 21:32, David Neary said: Hi, Alan Horkan wrote: Would that be before or after the elections? Before, I would have thought, but after would be OK too (before is probably easier). Erm. Well, easier for who? /me thinks to the membership committee ;-) But I agree, before would be better. Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
