On Thu, 2015-02-12 at 20:54 -0800, Christian Hergert wrote: > On 02/12/2015 07:33 PM, Cosimo Cecchi wrote: > > I think you bring up an interesting point, but I also like the idea > > that foundation membership is not a badge you earn if you contribute > > "enough", but hints to a deeper involvement with the community inner > > workings. > > I argue that a 3-months contribution from someone fresh to the project > > might or might not be enough to grant membership regardless of how > > they have been involved with the project, and I'm curious whether the > > case you are bringing up is theoretical or if there have been cases of > > interns interested in foundation membership dismissed solely on the > > supposed "intern clause". Of course I do support any initiative that > > aims to make the foundation a more welcoming place! > > I think the point here is that if our current bylaws claim one thing, we > should adhere to that for the time being. If we don't agree with the > bylaws, then they should be altered, which is a different process.
The foundation bylaws predates any outreach program (including bounties, that predates outreach programs) by many years. Therefore, hardly can address this special case. Back then there was no program where we were proactively seeking contributors by offering them money. Back then, if anybody applied after contributing for a period of time, then it was kind-of-clear(TM) they were to continue in the project. In addition, the membership process has never been strict (AFAIK). The idea is that it is better to have a false positive than a false negative. Two years later the membership has to be renewed after all. FWIW, the strictness (or lack of it) comes from all of us, in how many details we provide when we applied and renew a membership, and the details we provide when we vouch for somebody (if we provide them or just say +1). For some members it is fine to be lenient with the membership process. Give them as if they were candy I have heard more than once. But notice that for some people, we are also lenient with the outreach program interns. I think we all know interns whose patches were never committed and yet succeeded the program, because the process is what we consider important. Fine. As a consequence, succeeding an outreach program does not imply making non-trivial contributions. It does not even imply making actual contributions. We have become stricter in the application process, though. Yet, it varies from mentor to mentor, from intern to intern. These days I am ok to be lenient in both processes, but not simultaneously. That said, I do not think that if an intern applies for a membership would be rejected (show me I am wrong). However, if I were asked to vouch for somebody right after the program ends, I would say "sure, but show me you can contribute on your own for a while". That is different, and the bylaws does not mandate me to vouch for somebody, it is voluntary. -- Germán Poo-Caamaño http://calcifer.org/ _______________________________________________ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
