On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 10:33 +0200, Andre Schnabel wrote: > Hi Gainluca, > > > > > > Well, we're now talking about *meaningful* contribution and > > evaluation... ;-) > > > > That's an important step ahead. > > > > On the wiki a read: "all these contributions need to be non-trivial and > > last for a certain time frame". > > > > Then, there's a desperate need for a clear definition about what is > > *enough* to join TDF: 10 lines of code? A logo? 1000 work hours? > > > > A too low entry level increases the risks of hijacking, a too high entry > > level hinder the growing of the Foundation. > > > > In a two level acceptation process (contribution + evaluation of > > contribution by current members) it's fundamental, IMO, to set a level > > of contribution for membership that can be considered *consistent* in > > time and/or work and is *certain*. > > > Ok, so may we agree to the general idea to this process (contribute -> > apply for membership -> contributions gets evaluated -> membership gets > approved or denied) but need to find a good definition what amount / time > of contributions qualify for acceptance? >
> Hello André, I like the above paragraph also - as for strict or general requirements, I would tend to favor general, it is IMO the only workable way to get quality of contribution into the mix. One question: Beyond voting for the 'legal entity' board of directors, what other, if any, types of issues do you see the general membership voting on? I ask that to get a feel for the size of the group expected...more on that as a follow up I think. Thanks Drew -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
