Difference between revisions of "Talk:Sugar Labs/Sugar contributors"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
What about: | What about: | ||
* through promoting the idea of Sugar or advocating the importance of its target goals? | * through promoting the idea of Sugar or advocating the importance of its target goals? | ||
| + | :Of course | ||
* through Review and critique? Is it possible for someone who cares about the work of Sugar Labs but thinks it is all misguided and works hard to change its course to be a member? | * through Review and critique? Is it possible for someone who cares about the work of Sugar Labs but thinks it is all misguided and works hard to change its course to be a member? | ||
| − | + | :Only if they contribute their critique. | |
Also needing clarification: Is membership for life? If not, how does one renew or lose membership? Is there a process for nomination, or self-nomination? Of course the Committee can deal with this once it is set up. The most important distinction in my mind is whether membership is primarily through self-association and affiliation, through clearly defined heuristics requiring no human intervention (though perhaps with the option of a human veto / membership removal), or through a human approval process. | Also needing clarification: Is membership for life? If not, how does one renew or lose membership? Is there a process for nomination, or self-nomination? Of course the Committee can deal with this once it is set up. The most important distinction in my mind is whether membership is primarily through self-association and affiliation, through clearly defined heuristics requiring no human intervention (though perhaps with the option of a human veto / membership removal), or through a human approval process. | ||
:: [[User:Sj|+sj]] [[User Talk:Sj|<font color="#ff6996">+</font>]] 23:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC) | :: [[User:Sj|+sj]] [[User Talk:Sj|<font color="#ff6996">+</font>]] 23:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC) | ||
| + | :::All good questions. We will have a membership committee that will sort through these issues, presumably. My though would be membership would be for the period of involvement, as that is when it would be relevant. Other ideas? --[[User:Walter|Walter]] 02:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 21:12, 3 July 2008
What about:
- through promoting the idea of Sugar or advocating the importance of its target goals?
- Of course
- through Review and critique? Is it possible for someone who cares about the work of Sugar Labs but thinks it is all misguided and works hard to change its course to be a member?
- Only if they contribute their critique.
Also needing clarification: Is membership for life? If not, how does one renew or lose membership? Is there a process for nomination, or self-nomination? Of course the Committee can deal with this once it is set up. The most important distinction in my mind is whether membership is primarily through self-association and affiliation, through clearly defined heuristics requiring no human intervention (though perhaps with the option of a human veto / membership removal), or through a human approval process.