Memberships needing renewal (2015-2)
Hi, as per point 1.3 of [1], here it comes a list of members in need of a renew in case they didn't receive their individual e-mail: First name Last name, (Last renewed on) Andreas Nilsson, 2013-02-07 Stefan Walter, 2013-02-04 Nagappan Alagappan, 2013-02-05 Sanad Sanad, 2013-02-15 Robert Roth, 2013-01-25 Enrico Nicoletto, 2013-02-02 Andy Wingo, 2013-01-25 José María Casanova Crespo, 2013-02-04 Dominique Leuenberger, 2013-02-04 Sílvia Miranda Sánchez, 2013-02-02 Reinout van Schouwen, 2013-01-25 Ismael Olea, 2013-01-25 Simon YoungKi Hong, 2013-02-02 The Renewal form can be found at [2]. Cheers, GNOME Membership and Elections Committee [1] https://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2011-November/msg0.html [2] http://www.gnome.org/foundation/membership/apply/ ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation application..
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Olav Vitters wrote: > > As Meg seems to have pointed out already in her question, the same could > be > > said for any sponsored contributor. The bylaws are explicit in not > > discriminating against sponsored/paid contributors compared with any > other > > kind of contributor. There is a concrete process for anyone who disagrees > > with bylaws to suggest an amendment to them. > > I've asked you to consider chasing the meaning of bylaws. "Non-trivial > effort" is open to interpretation. I think it makes sense for members who volunteer for certain responsibilities to have the ability to make decisions. However, I think we as foundation members also need to be sensitive to the fact that newcomers (especially those who are minorities in the FOSS community) might see decisions based on interpretations (not strict following of clearly stated rules) as favoritism. So I think having clear information which is up to date and reflects how decisions are being made can be very important, especially if we are trying to be fair and clearly state our expectations to all potential members. I think this is also important if we want to retain minorities who have joined the community. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation application..
> > This policy came about after I encouraged interns who were 2/3rd of the > way through their internship in 2012 to apply for the Foundation > membership. The membership committee preferred that interns have a chance > to figure out their level of participation in GNOME after the internship > before applying and, as a rule, wanted to see non-trivial contributions for > a period longer than 6 months. The intention of having this statement in the internship wrap-up e-mail is > to tell interns about the foundation membership and encourage them to apply > at an appropriate point. Thanks for clarifying how the decision was arrived at. The issue in that defining an appropriate point essentially redefines membership illegibility, as the bylaws define it already. That is, unless it is generally agreed that all interns do make trivial contributions, (which I don't believe is the case here). I think some guidelines there are preferable to not mentioning the > foundation membership to interns at all. Guidelines are helpful, but not those which could mislead contributors into believing they are not eligible for membership. In that case, it does seem preferable to not mention anything, at all. With that said, I don't think this has to be a case of having to choose between two "evils". > I believe most interns make non-trivial contributions during their > internship, but because the membership committee has further discretion > about the expectations for the membership applications, we need to figure > out how to communicate these in future e-mails in a way that is encouraging > and relates the case-by-case provision of the bylaws. > Ideally everyone could be provided with easy access to clear guidance on the rules laid out by the bylaws on foundation membership illegibility, as well as information on how the process of applying works, which I believe is already covered on the foundation membership pages.[1] The information on those pages should be enough to help contributors decide whether to apply, if eligible contributors are still not applying enough (for whatever reason), then we'd probably need to either figure out how to improve the information by figuring out what is missing (e.g. could we be providing examples of what a typical accepted application might look like, or further information on when an eligible contributor stops being a eligible contributor?) or it may just be a case of improving how that information is delivered (i.e. whether it is accessible enough). A link to membership guidance could be provided to contributors to encourage them to explore the idea of applying for membership, for example. Thanks, Magdalen [1] http://www.gnome.org/foundation/membership/apply/ ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation application..
- Original Message - > From: "Magdalen Berns" > To: "Tobias Mueller" > Cc: "GNOME Foundation" > Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 8:35:17 AM > Subject: Re: foundation application.. > > > > > This is not a complicated process, it is fairly clear and transparent > > (especially when compared with the alternative). What is the problem with > > using It? > There is none. > > > At the moment we are talking about whether it is justifiable to tell all > > successful interns that they are not eligible for membership > We're not. > > Problem solved. Next. > > Really? GNOME have no role in this statement which went out to the OP and > GSoC intern lists in August of 2014?[1] Before denying this is a practice > again, draw your attention to the last line which says" If you only started > contributing to GNOME after February 2014, we ask that you continue > contributing for another half a year before applying > http://www.gnome.org/foundation/membership/apply/ ". The problem cannot be > solved if this continues to be the message going out about GNOME membership > eligibility. That message is not a true reflection of GNOME's actually rules > on membership eligibility. > > [1] https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-soc-list/2014-August/msg0.html Hi, This policy came about after I encouraged interns who were 2/3rd of the way through their internship in 2012 to apply for the Foundation membership. The membership committee preferred that interns have a chance to figure out their level of participation in GNOME after the internship before applying and, as a rule, wanted to see non-trivial contributions for a period longer than 6 months. The intention of having this statement in the internship wrap-up e-mail is to tell interns about the foundation membership and encourage them to apply at an appropriate point. I think some guidelines there are preferable to not mentioning the foundation membership to interns at all. I believe most interns make non-trivial contributions during their internship, but because the membership committee has further discretion about the expectations for the membership applications, we need to figure out how to communicate these in future e-mails in a way that is encouraging and relates the case-by-ca se provision of the bylaws. Thanks, Marina > > > ___ > foundation-list mailing list > foundation-list@gnome.org > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list > ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
