[IAEP] membership definitions

[Greg Dekoenigsberg]

On Mon, 8 Sep 2008, Edward Cherlin wrote:

>> 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 distinguishing privileges, such as a logo for a business card,
> and an e-mail address "@sugarlabs.org". Or maybe even some more
> significant privileges in the future. Free t-shirts? Discounts at
> events? I don't know.

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!  Voting for the board?  Sure!

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.

--g