Open Stack

On Thu, 2012-10-11 at 07:57 -0500, Christopher B Ferris wrote:
> Mark,
> 
> I'd be interested in more background on how GNOME handles membership.

Tonnes of info here:

  https://live.gnome.org/MembershipCommittee

All parts of the process are open and archived here:

  https://mail.gnome.org/archives/membership-committee/

> Is there objective criteria that are applied?

https://live.gnome.org/MembershipCommittee/MembershipGuidelines

  "Examples of non-trivial contributions include hacking, bugfixing,
   extensive testing, design, documentation, translation,
   administration or maintenance of project-wide resources, giving
   GNOME talks at conferences and community coordination such as
   bugzilla or release management.  Any activity, such as advocacy or
   submitting bug reports, must substantially exceed the level of
   contribution expected of an ordinary user or fan of the project to
   qualify an individual for membership in the Foundation."

I like this criteria, but obviously a membership committee could have an
even more inclusive criteria.

> If a request is declined, is there an appeals process?

The committee will reconsider a rejection if you give more info. I'm not
sure if you can escalate beyond that.

> Must the objective criteria be cited in the declined request?

https://live.gnome.org/MembershipCommittee/FormLetters#Application_denied
> 
> As for a statement being sufficient, I can appreciate that some
> believe it sufficient. I am merely stating that I don't believe that
> it is. Unless they are vetted, company X could send out an email with
> suggested statements and the barrier is thus circumvented. 

Imagine if any of the large voting blocks in the recent election had
taken such a strategy. It would have been obvious to everyone (the
statements would be public) and there would be uproar. Social pressure.

> Bottom line, we do not live in a perfect world. The individual members
> can be equally represented by individuals who are unaffiliated with
> existing Board members, and there is ample opportunity on the various
> mailing lists to have one's voice heard; just as we are doing here.

We have elections because we think that some candidates will represent
the individual members better than other candidates. IMHO there are a
number of affiliated candidates who would I would prefer to see
representing us over some of the unaffiliated candidates.

Cheers,
Mark.