4:08 p.m.
Hi Mark,
Mark Wielaard <mjw(a)gnu.org> skribis:
On Mon, 2021-03-29 at 14:16 +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
[...]
> I think any GNU contributor can subscribe to the mailing list.
I
> would exclude people who are not GNU contributors to ensure the list
> remains focused.
Note that we haven't really defined who is a "GNU contributor", so
there is still some ambiguity that the list admins need to resolve when
they don't know the person. But for now I added Siddhesh Poyarekar, who
is one of the release/uploaders of glibc. And who really should update
his wikipage https://www.sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/SiddheshPoyarekar
Great!
> In my view, being an Assembly member gives the additional
possibility of
> participating in decision making. That would mean having a voice in the
> (presumably rare) case where consensus cannot be found and we need to
> vote, and having an opinion “that counts” in other cases.
>
> IMO Assembly members must sign the Social Contract: it’s the way we
> collectively agree to basic requirements and goals.
I don't like the word "sign", but yes, I agree that being a GNU
contributor (however we define that term) and endorsing the GNU Social
Contract would make you an GNU Assembly member.
But again, we might have some trouble defining GNU contributor. For
example if you look at the maintainer file on fencepost you will now
see that it lists GNU Radio as unmaintained and various
packages/maintainers are now marked as "renegade", like most GNOME
related packages. I assume we still count them as GNU contributors. On
the other hand the maintainer file on fencepost lists some maintainers
who haven't actually contributed much besides an empty package (but
maybe they contributed to others?).
Good points. In the end, I think what makes most sense is the notion of
membership, where one endorses the GNU Social Contract.
I would hope that this notion of “non-endorsing member” will become
moot. Perhaps we should just exclude that notion in fact, since
non-endorsing members are probably going to be rare.
Finally, we should think about what happens over time. Should we have
a
yearly checking for example where people can simply recertify
themselves or should we have some minimum activity requirement?
There should be some sort of expiry, though in my mind it would be based
on will rather than measured activity (some activities are hard to
measure). We should check what groups like Debian are doing.
Thanks,
Ludo’.