Hello Andreas, members, community! Sorry for my delay. Last week we had, here in Brazil, the second edition of the Latin American Conference. Happy to say that we had an amazing event! In the next few days we will share more information: numbers, photos, results...
Answers below. Thanks for the questions. - What are the criteria to measure the value of a contribution? > This is always an important topic. I believe we are an open and inclusive project and TDF is the formal reflection of that. I also believe that a "contribution" is an individual way to our very well written "Goals of the Foundation" (§2 of the statutes). So, in a big picture, I see value in a contribution when I see the engagement of a member to contribute to reach some of these objectives. Basically, what we can read in §10/a of the statutes. To guide the MC decisions, we also have in §10/b a non-exhaustive list of types of contributions and, more important, I think: the alternative to confirm the contributions with other members. > - Which are the criteria for a non trivial or obviously insignificant > contribution? > For me, in a non trivial contribution we can see the intention to reach our goals in §2. For example, "My contribution is translating LibreOffice to my language and its available in weblate, my user is xyz" or "I have worked to present LibreOffice as the best alternative for my local government during the last months and members X and Z can confirm''. On the other hand, in an insignificant contribution, you can't see clearly our goals as, for example, in "I want to be a member because I use Calc to handle my personal accounting"... For sure that is a gray area between both cases. Again, the reference of other members is a key to confirm or not the membership and, also, the approach of the MC to clarify the doubts about the application. - Would your rating differ from areas of contribution? > No, my decisions are made more from a wide perspective, as I said in the previous questions, than from areas of contribution. But let me point this question in another perspective. What I differ is *my* expertise in different areas to decide about a membership. In other words: it's almost impossible to know what happens in all areas of our project and our organization. All areas are important but, for some of them, a MC member couldn't have the right skills to check if the contribution is valid or not. That's the importance of a plural MC. Sharing responsibilities inside the MC is important to identify from technical contributions (translation, development, infra...) to non-technical contributions (with language barriers, cultural differences, complex politics cenarios,...) Best, -- Gustavo Buzzatti Pacheco, member of the Membership Committee The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint My local Time: UTC-03:00 / CET-04:00
