Greg Dekoenigsberg wrote: > Yes... but why build a complicated membership management structure to do > that? > > There's a reason I'm asking. Keeping track of who is and isn't a "member" > can turn out to be surprisingly acrimonious and political, and will take > more overhead to properly manage. > > IMHO, there's little reason not to extend some privileges to basically > whomever asks. Email address? Sure. Logo usage, within clearly > circumscribed guidelines? Sure!
Your suggestion resonates well with me. What is the model that existing organization follow, such as Fedora, Debian, etc.? > Voting for the board? Sure! > I'm not really sure about this. Maybe you need to be involved in the project for some time until you get a vote. Say, you can have a voting right <some arbitrary number of months> after your application -during which time you will have all the above that you mentioned-. > I'm nervous about creating complexity without a compelling need. > Membership in Fedora means you've signed the contributor's licensing > agreement. That's it. Trivial to measure, trivial to maintain, > inclusive. If you want to reward "better" contributors, pay their airfare > to hackfests. > Ooops... there's my answer... :) Pol _______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep