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 >>>> (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 <carlton...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Andrew. >>>>> >>>>> Yes. Good question. I'm not immediately sure if there is a better >>>>> description of DSF membership around. 🤔 >>>>> >>>>> It's meant to be a recognition of contribution to the community, be >>>>> that to the code in django/django, maintaining a <modifier> 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 >>>>> <https://github.com/django/deps/pull/75/files> 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 <acm...@gmail.com> 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-develop...@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 >>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/824f1e56-64f1-44e4-9612-dc121c5d3efcn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>> . >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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-develop...@googlegroups.com. >>>>> >>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAJwKpySfQfgtpoLnCYcwfsaL7g1kgOZU%2BPvKyvggm0UT%3DLpiWg%40mail.gmail.com >>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAJwKpySfQfgtpoLnCYcwfsaL7g1kgOZU%2BPvKyvggm0UT%3DLpiWg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>> . >>>>> >>>> -- > 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/2a6cab2c-2112-4cb0-92c2-54470dd799aan%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/2a6cab2c-2112-4cb0-92c2-54470dd799aan%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- 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/CALojRn9iX5rb%2BZ-yc%2Bi8PBZP8U8eWmaLR1A2y5gQyLCm5ZuKng%40mail.gmail.com.
