Any comments? Can we go ahead and (re)create [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Can we discuss at Thu dev meeting? I'd like to better understand the
purpose of both your and David proposal.
Cheers,
Marco
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 4:02 PM, Polychronis Ypodimatopoulos [EMAIL
PROTECTED]wrote:
Hi,
Some comments inline:
David Farning wrote:
2. Membership Requirements
Membership is earned either through the efforts of an individual
or through the annually payment of
Excellent. When can we expect to see the dues requirements for
organizations? I would like to go talk to some likely prospects ASAP.
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 1:50 PM, David Farning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have put together a brief list of definitions for Sugar Labs
membership.
Please comment
On Mon, 8 Sep 2008, Walter Bender wrote:
It may be obvious, but we should explicitly state that members can
terminate their own membership unilaterally at any time.
Regarding what constitutes a contribution, here is the language we had
been using:
Any significant and sustained contributor
Let me ask a question.
To what end would we limit individual membership *at all*? Is there any
reason not to be as ridiculously inclusive as possible?
We are not limiting _participation_ *at all*. We are proposing to
recognize significant contributors like yourself, and provide a few
small
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 8:13 AM, David Farning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With this in mind, the goal of creating new mailing lists is not to
fragment the existing community. It is to create footholds for other
communities to develop around the central learning platform.
It's about economies of
On Mon, 2008-09-08 at 14:40 -0700, Edward Cherlin wrote:
Excellent. When can we expect to see the dues requirements for
organizations? I would like to go talk to some likely prospects ASAP.
Correction: I would like to remove, Generally, at least two months of
visible, significant activity will
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.
On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 06:53:47PM -0400, Polychronis Ypodimatopoulos wrote:
Greg Dekoenigsberg wrote:
Yes... but why build a complicated membership management structure to do
that?
[...]
Your suggestion resonates well with me.
Me too.
Voting for the board? Sure!
I'm not really sure
