[IAEP] Preparing for the 2017 SLOB Election

[Dave Crossland]

Hi

On 7 August 2016 at 13:48, Dave Crossland <dave at lab6.com> wrote:

>
> On 7 August 2016 at 10:44, Sebastian Silva <sebastian at fuentelibre.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Instead of raising the barrier to entry, I would prefer to enforce our
>> currency policy ("are you still interested in being a member?" - every
>> year) so that hopefully only active members get to vote.
>>
>
> I don't think that's precisely what is bein debated :)
>
> Rather, the issue is that we have to define who it is we consider worth
> asking if they are interested to be a member. I am happy to cast as wide a
> net as possible, while Caryl would like to cast the net wider in some ways
> and narrower in others, and would like SLOBs to decide rather than the
> delegated committee.
>

Do you have any further comments on how wide a net to cast here?

On 5 August 2016 at 19:11, I wrote in this thread:

>
> I agree that we could clarify how we determine what level of contribution
> counts to make one eligible for membership.
>
> I propose the following are sufficient:
>
> - owning a computer or being part of an organization that owns computers
> that regularly use Sugar
>
> - creating a wiki account and making 1 edit to the wiki
>
> - posting to a SL mailing list
>
> - contributing a patch to a sugar software package
>
> - owning a laptop.org or sugarlabs.org email account, now or in the past
>
> What are possible verifiable criteria are possible? Should any of these
> not count?
>

I saw https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Members says, bold emphasis
mine:

Any "significant and sustained" contributor to Sugar Labs is eligible for
membership. Although it is difficult to specify a precise definition, a
contributor generally must have* contributed to a non-trivial improvement* of
the Sugar project or Sugar Labs activity. Contributions may be *code,
documentation, translations, maintenance of project-wide resources, running
a Sugar deployment, or other non-trivial activities which benefit Sugar
Labs.* Membership eligibility is an individual determination: while
contributions made in the course of employment will be considered, they
will generally be ascribed to the individuals involved, rather than
accruing to all employees of a "contributing" corporation. The Membership
and Elections Committee will oversee membership applications (Please apply
by sending email to members at sugarlabs.org).


I think all the items on my list above are trivial, and therefore if we
continue to use that membership bar, then none of those should count, but I
think most items can be 'significant and sustained' if they are qualified
by a specific volume metric, ie,

- managing an organization/deployment that regularly uses Sugar (note -
this excludes sugar users from being members)

- creating a wiki account and making 10+ edits to the wiki in the last 3-12
months

- posting to a SL mailing list 10+ times in the last 3-12 months

- contributing 10+ patches to any software package hosted in
github.com/sugarlabs or http://git.sugarlabs.org in the last 3-12 months

Should we include such criteria in the email to potential members, so they
can confirm they are on par within 2016? If so, what should the criteria be?

I am in favor of casting a wide net with a relatively low barrier, such
that anyone who wants to be a member can say make 10 list emails or wiki
edits 91 days or more before the election and qualify, but just saying "I
want to be a member" without any participation in the last year can not.

-- 
Cheers
Dave
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/attachments/20160817/c8dd9b2f/attachment.html>