[ZF] Re: Status update for documents

[Martijn Faassen]

Hey,

On 4/22/07, Christian Theune <ct at gocept.com> wrote:
> any comments? I'd like to proceed and get those things done too, but I
> need feedback for this to proceed.

One of my questions is that you seem to be trying to boil down the
purpose of the ZMO to something less verbose. I don't really
understand why this is necessary.  If the goal is to get rid of the
ZMO from the bylaws, why do you need to boil it down? Can you explain?

> Additionally, I noticed that I'm still not understanding the actual
> problem of the contributor vs committer member issue. I think we forgot
> to revisit that during PyCon. Can someone point out the problem and the
> general idea of a solution so I can make adjustments to the docs?

The Foundation needs to have the ability to give people commit rights
to the repositories, or, say, access to whatever CMS the foundation is
running, or even sysadmin rights on a foundation machine, without this
person having to become a foundation members and sign a foundation
membership form. We need a minimal procedure here. This procedure
should allow the Foundation to safeguard the copyright of the
contributions, so would still require a signature to something. It's
just full membership should not be required.

People who have contributed a lot should have the option to become a
contributor member (we intend to rename "committer member" to
"contributor member", so you should be doing this in the documents :).
Contributor members are members of the foundation.

So, we have contributors. And we have contributor members. The latter
is a subset of the former.

Regards,

Martijn