So, in the Membership Status GR, we sent a clear message that we wanted those decisions to be postponed. Now, we have a responsibility to prove that we were not just rejecting any change, but that our vote was really a vote against the way those decisions were announced, and/or those particular decisions. I’m convinced that our management of membership needs to be improved.

I hope that in the next weeks/months, we will be able to discuss proposals about membership status. There’s Joerg’s, there’s Lars’, there’s Raphael’s, and there might be other ideas. Ideally, each of them would be discussed and improved separately (because we can’t be expected to agree on one proposal right from the start), and finally we would get to vote on a coherent set of proposals (with an unbiaised ballot ;) to choose in which direction we want to change our management of membership. It would be great to use the DEP process or something similar for that.

It is also interesting to compare this whole story with our current issue: a secretary that ignored valid criticism about a ballot and went on with asking to vote on it. In both cases, someone that is generally trusted and respected by the project made a mistake, and failed to acknowledge it, requiring strong actions from other DDs. I wonder how the secretary crisis will end…