Talk:Open Badges
Self Exclusion
You don't mention "Members", but instead "Contributors". Members and contributors are disjoint sets. I'd like a way to register for exclusion. Some contributors may be paid by other organisations, or may have to reject any badge because of conflict of interest.
Consider the Maintainer
Please also watch this talk by Nadia Eghbal (of GitHub) at linux.conf.au 2017;
- Consider the Maintainer synopsis on linux.conf.au,
- Consider the Maintainer on Youtube,
Nadia has many other ideas.
Also this report is relevant;
Sugar is infrastructure.
Opinion expressed by email on IAEP by Caryl Bigenho
2017-04-07 11:34 GMT-05:00 Caryl Bigenho <cbigenho@hotmail.com>:
The badges are a bad idea! There is absolutely no guarantee that badge holders would make any contributions to warrant the amounts they would be collecting just for being some kind of "hero" in the past. SugarLabs funds should be reserved for specific projects and products. If these special folks on the "anointed" list have specific projects they would like to be funded to do... great! Let them present proposals ... carefully thought out and carefully crafted proposals, to the SLOB for possible approval.
There is also an obvious, huge, conflict of interest in having so many of the proposed badge recipients voting on the issue. Doing something like this will take away all credibility of SugarLabs as an NGO or even as a viable organization that relies heavily on volunteer contributions to their efforts.