16/05/2023 Model Proposal - Section 1, Membership

[rcheesley]

Hi @nick_vh and thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts, much appreciated!

@Nick_vh

Why even allow people to decline its right to be a Mautic member? It doesn’t make sense for someone to not be a member if there are no rights or obligations attached to it. Similar trend, but keep it as simple as possible. Let the code of conduct be the arbiter of the behavior.

Which part are you referring to here? If you are suggesting everyone having voting rights, we had quite a lengthy discussion around wanting to encourage people to give back to Mautic, and that earning voting rights by financially or practically contributing was one way to ‘incentivise’ for want of a better phrase, that behaviour.

@Nick_vh

• Supporting member. It’s not fully clear when the price is revised once a year.

I think we would review the base rate in the annual General Assembly but I can make that clearer. updated to make this clearer

@Nick_vh

I suggest to limite to X countries or regions. You already have enough administration I would think, so I’m not sure why this should be more complex than necessary.

I don’t think we should limit anything by country. We already use the Big Mac Index for our partner programme, and there were concerns expressed that $100 flat rate was a much larger ask in some places in the world than others. That’s why we proposed the Big Mac Index, to make it more proportionately fair.

@Nick_vh

maybe make the case that they should provide proof of 5 positive contributions to Mautic in the last 3 months?

We had a lengthy debate on this as well - it is a hard one. The 5 hrs/mth actually comes directly from a very long established open source project, the Python Software Foundation: PSF Bylaws | Python Software Foundation - see section 4.6. The main discussion was around 5 contributions being to create an image on Canva, for example, might take 5 minutes each, whereas a PR might take 2 hours each. So self-certifying the time basis was what we came up with (inspired by Python) as a way to work around this.

@Nick_vh

• Managing members: There is a small sentence about that, but no header.

This was subsequently simplified so I think this is outdated now.

@Nick_vh

Fellows: In most other OSS projects this is called “Core team” or something similar.

I don’t think that is the case. Fellows are folks who are most likely not involved with Mautic any more. Think of it like an honorary member. Voting rights, but not necessarily contributing any more.

@Nick_vh

I suggest to turn this around, if no objections are given for the member to become a fellow or core team member within 30 days, we’ll move forward.

Yes, we did discuss defaulting to using lazy consensus and time boxing of decision making in another part of the governance model. We absolutely could use lazy consensus there too. I’m fine with updating that away from a majority and towards a time-boxed lazy consensus.