[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: sponsors for cvsl10n

Em Seg, 2008-12-22 às 13:14 +0530, Runa Bhattacharjee escreveu:
> Most other mails on the same thread suggest, "one sponsor from each team (e.g. coordinator)". 
> Although this sounds like an easier method, imho it is not scalable given the current size of the 
> FLP. With >~80 sponsors for the cvsl10n group, it would become a necessity, putting in place 
> guidelines for sponsorship and ensuring that they are adhered to. Especially, since the following 
> needs to be tracked:
> 1. Coordinators/Sponsors for a team are active and respond
> 2. Coordinators/Sponsors for a team do not sponsor members from other teams without authorization
> Additionally, in case of disputes or dormant teams, some guidelines have to be in place to over-ride 
> the language team coordinator's authority (if we are assuming that only a coordinator or authorized 
> member of a language team can sponsor new entrants to that team).

The idea would be that only teams with no coordinators could have
members sponsored by coordinators from other languages. The scalability
of this model is really something to think about. Maybe we could have
language groups. The challenge is to find a coherent logic to separate
the languages. Separate them by regions or continents might not be a
good idea.

> Secondly, it does not eradicate the current problem of:
> 1. Determining the identity/affiliations of the new entrant (unless the entrant chooses to disclose).
> Reason being: The "Self:Introduction" mail is listed in the TQSG, but is not a hindrance to reach 
> the queue. Unless the new entrant is "forcibly" made to mention the language team she/he would like 
> to join, they can be waiting in the queue for eternity (or sponsored by someone clearing the queue).

We should also define an aging policy. If the person doesn't show up
after a while it will be necessary to remove he/she from the queue.

> Reiterating from an earlier suggestion about this[1], imho  the introduction of an automatic 
> additional step - "approval from the language coordinator" somewhere on the sponsorship page would 
> help map the new entrant to a language and ensure that the coordinator can approve/disapprove of 
> her/his membership either directly or indirectly.

Wouldn't be necessary to change FAS in order to achieve this?

Igor Pires Soares

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]