[IAEP] Membership issues

[David Farning]

On Fri, 2008-09-05 at 15:55 -0700, Edward Cherlin wrote:
> Please add your thoughts on members' rights and duties. Showing up at
> meetings, in person or online? Voting? If so, on what? Who qualifies
> for a title and an e-mail address? Discounts on anything of interest,
> such as Sugar Labs events? A t-shirt?

I am thinking that as we agree on the 3 principles, determine the
relative weights of the purposes, and discuss the various structures,
the right's and responsibilities will start to sort themselves out.

> How do you propose to choose among these possibilities for a
> structure, or any others that may be proposed?

Spend the next few weeks discussing the issues.  Work with the
Membership committee to propose a draft.  Submit the draft document to
flossfoundations.org and the linuxfoundation for feedback.  Submit the
final document to the Oversight boards for conses.

> On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 3:25 PM, David Farning <dfarning at sugarlabs.org> wrote:
> > When setting up the membership structure for Sugar Labs we have several
> > issues to consider. Below is a brief analysis of those issues and how
> > they relate to sugar Labs. Feed back on issues I have missed or
> > misunderstood is appreciated. Monday I will post an initial Membership
> > document to the wiki and this list for more review
> >
> >
> > Principles of Membership
> >
> >
> > One way to define the 'spirit' of membership is to explicitly define
> > membership principles.
> >
> > Open – Sugar Labs is open to all; Sugar Labs provides the same
> > opportunity to all. Everyone participates with the same rules; there are
> > no rules to exclude any potential contributors which include, of course,
> > direct competitors in the marketplace.
> >
> > Transparent - Project discussions, minutes, deliberations, project
> > plans, plans for new features, and other artifacts are open, public, and
> > easily accessible.
> >
> > Meritocracy – Sugar Labs is a meritocracy. The more you contribute the
> > more responsibility you will earn. Leadership roles in Sugar Labs are
> > also merit-based and earned by peer acclaim.
> >
> >
> > Purposes of membership
> >
> >
> > Keeping track of membership will be costly. There is the initial setup
> > costs and the ongoing maintenance cost of keeping the membership roles
> > up to date. These cost must be out weighed by the benefits of
> > Governance, Recognition of Merit, Fund Raising, and Defense.
> >
> >
> > Governance. - On the first level a membership body give Sugar Labs the
> > ability govern itself. Member will be able to vote directly on issues.
> > Members will be able to vote for elected representatives. Member will be
> > able to call referendums.
> >
> >
> > Recognition of Merit – Individual membership in will be a sign of Merit.
> > Membership, responsibility, and authority will reflect the value of an
> > individuals contributions.
> >
> >
> > Fund Raising - Organizational membership will indicate levels of support
> > Sugar Labs receives from outside entities. Support can include cash,
> > engineering resources, event and travel sponsorship.
> >
> >
> > Defensive – Broad definitions of membership will help prevent the Sugar
> > Labs foundation from being hijacked by a hostile entity.
> >
> >
> >
> > Membership types
> >
> >
> > Individual – Most projects have a category for individual membership.
> > Membership is earned through quality of work.
> >
> >
> > Organizational – Some projects have categories for organizational
> > memberships. The fee structure for Organization membership can vary
> > based on the size of the organization and the degree of influence the
> > organization has over the Project.
> >
> >
> >
> > Membership Documents
> >
> >
> > In order to keep track of members and their contributions we will need a
> > basic set of documents.
> >
> >
> > Application – The membership application will ensure that Sugar Labs has
> > at a minimum the real name and contact information for members.
> >
> > Code of Conduct – The code of conduct will establish a set of principles
> > and expectations for Sugar Labs Members.
> >
> >
> >
> > Membership structures
> >
> >
> > Now that we have defined why we want a membership we need to chose a
> > membership structure that reflects our needs. Below are some categories
> > of Membership, projects using them, and pros and cons to their use.
> >
> >
> > None – One of the most successful foss projects has no formal membership
> > criteria. The closest thing the Linux Kernel has to a membership list is
> > who receives an invitation to OLS. Pros: Very cheap. Cons: Requires a
> > dictator to govern the project.
> >
> >
> > Twin – RedHat/Fedora, Ubuntu/Canonical, Open Office/Sun are examples of
> > tight couplings between community projects and specif commercial
> > entities. In twins, the commercial entity provides resources to the
> > community in exchange for community involvement. Pros: Form the basis
> > for sound business models. Limited fund raising required by the
> > community. Cons: Possible tensions between the needs of the community
> > vs. the needs of the corporation.
> >
> >
> > Stand alone – Gnome is an example of a stand alone project. They are not
> > aligned with any single entity. In stand alone projects, the members can
> > have differing levels of control over their project. Sometimes members
> > can affect technical decision, other times a separate group of commiters
> > make technical decisions while the membership governs the infrastructure
> > needs of the project. Commercial entities can have membership status.
> > Pros: The most common form of membership. Well understood. Cons: There
> > is no 'vision' provided by the twin, the membership must determine the
> > projects direction internally. Requires fund raising.
> >
> >
> > Umbrella – Apache is an example of an Umbrella organization. Umbrellas
> > tend to form when there are a number of closely related projects that
> > share a common goal. They introduce and additional level of management
> > as the individual projects are governed independently. The umbrella
> > organization can play an active role in individual projects or it can
> > focus on providing the infrastructure of sub project. Pros: Good for
> > establishing ecosystem. Cons: Can be complex.
> >
> >
> > Space Shuttle – Eclipse is an example of a space shuttle project. It is
> > so complicated that it is amazing it gets off the ground;) On the other
> > hand, it was designed to handle some hostile situations. Eclipse
> > provides a common standard and platform for competitors to collaborate.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> > IAEP at lists.sugarlabs.org
> > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
> 
> 
> 

dfarning