Re: Proposal: Clarify individual members page
Hey Andrew. I had thought this was a Flatpage (stored in the database) but it's not. The source is here: https://github.com/django/djangoproject.com/blob/main/djangoproject/templates/members/individualmember_list.html If you wanted to open a PR suggesting your changes, that would be amazing 🤩 Thanks. Kind Regards, Carlton On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 at 19:51, Tim Allen wrote: > I'm of the opinion that if you care enough about Django to investigate > becoming a member of the DSF, that's enough of a qualification - it is just > challenging to formalize that into proper text for the website. Maybe two > changes to encourage people to join: > >- We could tweak *"Running Django-related events or user groups" *to > *"Attending >or organizing Django-related events or user groups"*. >- Add a sentence to the end of the first stanza: "The following are >Individual Members of the Django Software Foundation. The DSF appoints >individual Members in recognition of their service to the Django community. >If you would like to join the DSF, we welcome you. Please feel free to >self-nominate for membership." > > Regards, > > Tim > > On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 11:12:41 AM UTC-5 cory...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Hey Andrew, >> >> Thanks for drafting this language and I think it looks great. As someone >> who only recently applied after hearing it discussed on an episode of >> Django Chat[1], I'm all for the goals of making it more encouraging and >> accessible and think this is a great step in that direction. >> >> Here are a few minor thoughts to specific bits: >> >> Service to the Django community takes many forms. Here are some examples >>> (non-exhaustive) of categories of work performed by members: >>> >> >> "performed by members" is a little ambiguous as to whether it means "this >> is how we evaluate applicants" vs "this is what you'll do if part of the >> DSF". Since I think the intention is the former it might make sense to >> change to something like: >> >> *Service to the Django community takes many forms. Here are some >> (non-exhaustive) examples of the categories of work that might qualify as >> "service":* >> >> Borrowed the list of categories from Andrew Godwin's DEP for the update >>> to the technical board. Per Tim's recommendation, do we want to include >>> anything about the review process? >>> >> >> When I applied I didn't (and still don't, really) have any visibility >> into the process, so it wasn't a deterrent for me, personally, but I think >> having information certainly wouldn't hurt. My two cents would be good to >> put something in, but not necessarily if it slows down/stalls this change >> if for whatever reason that isn't super easy, since I think this represents >> an improvement on its own. >> >> Also, I'm a little unsure about that last bit about applying, but I >>> wanted to put something encouraging to folks to apply. Happy to reword that >>> if someone has a better suggestion. I'd prefer that to having a full rubric >>> for membership on this page, primarily because I think it would be very >>> difficult to nail that down because the work that folks perform can be so >>> disparate (must have run X django meetups, or triaged Y tickets). >>> >> >> Definitely agree a rubric would cause more problems than it would help at >> this stage. The goals of rubrics in terms of increasing objectivity and >> reducing bias are great, but as applied to the already-squishy definition >> of "service to the community" it doesn't seem like a good fit here. >> >> Finally, this is wildly out of scope, but it may make sense to (either >> here or separately) attempt to create a bit more content about what it >> means to be an individual member of the DSF. That information is also >> somewhat lacking, and having it somewhere may encourage more people to >> apply. One possibility could be to link to one of the recent conference >> talks[2][3] on the DSF. But wouldn't want that discussion/information to >> slow down this change. >> >> cheers, >> Cory >> >> [1] https://djangochat.com/episodes/read-the-docs-eric-holscher >> [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_e-QoeZwEM >> [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJnaEZkoVTg >> >> >>> On Thursday, October 27, 2022 at 10:03:48 AM UTC-4 carlton...@gmail.com >>> wrote: >>> That would be awesome, yes. Fresh eyes likely see more clearly :) And equally. :) Thanks. C. On Thursday, 27 October 2022 at 15:28:09 UTC+2 acm...@gmail.com wrote: > Regarding Carlton's points, that does clarify, and I agree about the > open ended qualifiers. I also agree with Tim's points. I'm not sure we > need > another membership level (I'm not opposed, though). Rather, I think making > the current page more transparent will help more folks feel welcome and > hopefully get more folks (who do fit the criteria) to apply. > > If someone wants to draft new language, that would be great. If not, I >
Re: Proposal: Clarify individual members page
Will do, Carlton. Tim and Cory, thanks for the suggestions. I'll incorporate those in the PR and post here when it's ready. Probably not today, but I should be able to open it before the end of the week. Thanks, Andrew On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 10:10:51 AM UTC-5 carlton...@gmail.com wrote: > Hey Andrew. > > I had thought this was a Flatpage (stored in the database) but it's not. > The source is here: > https://github.com/django/djangoproject.com/blob/main/djangoproject/templates/members/individualmember_list.html > If you wanted to open a PR suggesting your changes, that would be amazing > 🤩 > > Thanks. > > Kind Regards, > > Carlton > > On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 at 19:51, Tim Allen wrote: > >> I'm of the opinion that if you care enough about Django to investigate >> becoming a member of the DSF, that's enough of a qualification - it is just >> challenging to formalize that into proper text for the website. Maybe two >> changes to encourage people to join: >> >>- We could tweak *"Running Django-related events or user groups" *to >> *"Attending >>or organizing Django-related events or user groups"*. >>- Add a sentence to the end of the first stanza: "The following are >>Individual Members of the Django Software Foundation. The DSF appoints >>individual Members in recognition of their service to the Django >> community. >>If you would like to join the DSF, we welcome you. Please feel free to >>self-nominate for membership." >> >> Regards, >> >> Tim >> >> On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 11:12:41 AM UTC-5 cory...@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> Hey Andrew, >>> >>> Thanks for drafting this language and I think it looks great. As someone >>> who only recently applied after hearing it discussed on an episode of >>> Django Chat[1], I'm all for the goals of making it more encouraging and >>> accessible and think this is a great step in that direction. >>> >>> Here are a few minor thoughts to specific bits: >>> >>> Service to the Django community takes many forms. Here are some examples (non-exhaustive) of categories of work performed by members: >>> >>> "performed by members" is a little ambiguous as to whether it means >>> "this is how we evaluate applicants" vs "this is what you'll do if part of >>> the DSF". Since I think the intention is the former it might make sense to >>> change to something like: >>> >>> *Service to the Django community takes many forms. Here are some >>> (non-exhaustive) examples of the categories of work that might qualify as >>> "service":* >>> >>> Borrowed the list of categories from Andrew Godwin's DEP for the update to the technical board. Per Tim's recommendation, do we want to include anything about the review process? >>> >>> When I applied I didn't (and still don't, really) have any visibility >>> into the process, so it wasn't a deterrent for me, personally, but I think >>> having information certainly wouldn't hurt. My two cents would be good to >>> put something in, but not necessarily if it slows down/stalls this change >>> if for whatever reason that isn't super easy, since I think this represents >>> an improvement on its own. >>> >>> Also, I'm a little unsure about that last bit about applying, but I wanted to put something encouraging to folks to apply. Happy to reword that if someone has a better suggestion. I'd prefer that to having a full rubric for membership on this page, primarily because I think it would be very difficult to nail that down because the work that folks perform can be so disparate (must have run X django meetups, or triaged Y tickets). >>> >>> Definitely agree a rubric would cause more problems than it would help >>> at this stage. The goals of rubrics in terms of increasing objectivity and >>> reducing bias are great, but as applied to the already-squishy definition >>> of "service to the community" it doesn't seem like a good fit here. >>> >>> Finally, this is wildly out of scope, but it may make sense to (either >>> here or separately) attempt to create a bit more content about what it >>> means to be an individual member of the DSF. That information is also >>> somewhat lacking, and having it somewhere may encourage more people to >>> apply. One possibility could be to link to one of the recent conference >>> talks[2][3] on the DSF. But wouldn't want that discussion/information to >>> slow down this change. >>> >>> cheers, >>> Cory >>> >>> [1] https://djangochat.com/episodes/read-the-docs-eric-holscher >>> [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_e-QoeZwEM >>> [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJnaEZkoVTg >>> >>> On Thursday, October 27, 2022 at 10:03:48 AM UTC-4 carlton...@gmail.com wrote: > That would be awesome, yes. Fresh eyes likely see more clearly :) > > And equally. :) > > Thanks. > C. > > On Thursday, 27 October 2022 at 15:28:09 UTC+2 acm...@gmail.c
Re: Proposal: Clarify individual members page
Great, Thanks Andrew. No urgency 😊 On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 at 16:16, Andrew Mshar wrote: > Will do, Carlton. > > Tim and Cory, thanks for the suggestions. I'll incorporate those in the PR > and post here when it's ready. Probably not today, but I should be able to > open it before the end of the week. > > Thanks, > Andrew > > On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 10:10:51 AM UTC-5 carlton...@gmail.com > wrote: > >> Hey Andrew. >> >> I had thought this was a Flatpage (stored in the database) but it's not. >> The source is here: >> https://github.com/django/djangoproject.com/blob/main/djangoproject/templates/members/individualmember_list.html >> If you wanted to open a PR suggesting your changes, that would be amazing >> 🤩 >> >> Thanks. >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> Carlton >> >> On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 at 19:51, Tim Allen wrote: >> >>> I'm of the opinion that if you care enough about Django to investigate >>> becoming a member of the DSF, that's enough of a qualification - it is just >>> challenging to formalize that into proper text for the website. Maybe two >>> changes to encourage people to join: >>> >>>- We could tweak *"Running Django-related events or user groups" * >>>to *"Attending or organizing Django-related events or user groups"*. >>>- Add a sentence to the end of the first stanza: "The following are >>>Individual Members of the Django Software Foundation. The DSF appoints >>>individual Members in recognition of their service to the Django >>> community. >>>If you would like to join the DSF, we welcome you. Please feel free to >>>self-nominate for membership." >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Tim >>> >>> On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 11:12:41 AM UTC-5 cory...@gmail.com >>> wrote: >>> Hey Andrew, Thanks for drafting this language and I think it looks great. As someone who only recently applied after hearing it discussed on an episode of Django Chat[1], I'm all for the goals of making it more encouraging and accessible and think this is a great step in that direction. Here are a few minor thoughts to specific bits: Service to the Django community takes many forms. Here are some > examples (non-exhaustive) of categories of work performed by members: > "performed by members" is a little ambiguous as to whether it means "this is how we evaluate applicants" vs "this is what you'll do if part of the DSF". Since I think the intention is the former it might make sense to change to something like: *Service to the Django community takes many forms. Here are some (non-exhaustive) examples of the categories of work that might qualify as "service":* Borrowed the list of categories from Andrew Godwin's DEP for the update > to the technical board. Per Tim's recommendation, do we want to include > anything about the review process? > When I applied I didn't (and still don't, really) have any visibility into the process, so it wasn't a deterrent for me, personally, but I think having information certainly wouldn't hurt. My two cents would be good to put something in, but not necessarily if it slows down/stalls this change if for whatever reason that isn't super easy, since I think this represents an improvement on its own. Also, I'm a little unsure about that last bit about applying, but I > wanted to put something encouraging to folks to apply. Happy to reword > that > if someone has a better suggestion. I'd prefer that to having a full > rubric > for membership on this page, primarily because I think it would be very > difficult to nail that down because the work that folks perform can be so > disparate (must have run X django meetups, or triaged Y tickets). > Definitely agree a rubric would cause more problems than it would help at this stage. The goals of rubrics in terms of increasing objectivity and reducing bias are great, but as applied to the already-squishy definition of "service to the community" it doesn't seem like a good fit here. Finally, this is wildly out of scope, but it may make sense to (either here or separately) attempt to create a bit more content about what it means to be an individual member of the DSF. That information is also somewhat lacking, and having it somewhere may encourage more people to apply. One possibility could be to link to one of the recent conference talks[2][3] on the DSF. But wouldn't want that discussion/information to slow down this change. cheers, Cory [1] https://djangochat.com/episodes/read-the-docs-eric-holscher [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_e-QoeZwEM [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJnaEZkoVTg > On Thursday, October 27, 2022 at 10:03:48 AM UTC-4 > carlton...@gmail.com wrote: > >> That would be awesome, yes. Fresh eyes
Re: Proposal: Clarify individual members page
Just want to pop in and say these are great ideas - feel free to copy me in on any PR if you want extra opinions! On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 8:26:28 AM UTC-7 Carlton Gibson wrote: > Great, Thanks Andrew. No urgency 😊 > > On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 at 16:16, Andrew Mshar wrote: > >> Will do, Carlton. >> >> Tim and Cory, thanks for the suggestions. I'll incorporate those in the >> PR and post here when it's ready. Probably not today, but I should be able >> to open it before the end of the week. >> >> Thanks, >> Andrew >> >> On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 10:10:51 AM UTC-5 carlton...@gmail.com >> wrote: >> >>> Hey Andrew. >>> >>> I had thought this was a Flatpage (stored in the database) but it's not. >>> The source is here: >>> https://github.com/django/djangoproject.com/blob/main/djangoproject/templates/members/individualmember_list.html >>> If you wanted to open a PR suggesting your changes, that would be >>> amazing 🤩 >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> >>> Carlton >>> >>> On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 at 19:51, Tim Allen >>> wrote: >>> I'm of the opinion that if you care enough about Django to investigate becoming a member of the DSF, that's enough of a qualification - it is just challenging to formalize that into proper text for the website. Maybe two changes to encourage people to join: - We could tweak *"Running Django-related events or user groups" * to *"Attending or organizing Django-related events or user groups"*. - Add a sentence to the end of the first stanza: "The following are Individual Members of the Django Software Foundation. The DSF appoints individual Members in recognition of their service to the Django community. If you would like to join the DSF, we welcome you. Please feel free to self-nominate for membership." Regards, Tim On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 11:12:41 AM UTC-5 cory...@gmail.com wrote: > Hey Andrew, > > Thanks for drafting this language and I think it looks great. As > someone who only recently applied after hearing it discussed on an > episode > of Django Chat[1], I'm all for the goals of making it more encouraging > and > accessible and think this is a great step in that direction. > > Here are a few minor thoughts to specific bits: > > Service to the Django community takes many forms. Here are some >> examples (non-exhaustive) of categories of work performed by members: >> > > "performed by members" is a little ambiguous as to whether it means > "this is how we evaluate applicants" vs "this is what you'll do if part > of > the DSF". Since I think the intention is the former it might make sense > to > change to something like: > > *Service to the Django community takes many forms. Here are some > (non-exhaustive) examples of the categories of work that might qualify as > "service":* > > Borrowed the list of categories from Andrew Godwin's DEP for the >> update to the technical board. Per Tim's recommendation, do we want to >> include anything about the review process? >> > > When I applied I didn't (and still don't, really) have any visibility > into the process, so it wasn't a deterrent for me, personally, but I > think > having information certainly wouldn't hurt. My two cents would be good to > put something in, but not necessarily if it slows down/stalls this change > if for whatever reason that isn't super easy, since I think this > represents > an improvement on its own. > > Also, I'm a little unsure about that last bit about applying, but I >> wanted to put something encouraging to folks to apply. Happy to reword >> that >> if someone has a better suggestion. I'd prefer that to having a full >> rubric >> for membership on this page, primarily because I think it would be very >> difficult to nail that down because the work that folks perform can be >> so >> disparate (must have run X django meetups, or triaged Y tickets). >> > > Definitely agree a rubric would cause more problems than it would help > at this stage. The goals of rubrics in terms of increasing objectivity > and > reducing bias are great, but as applied to the already-squishy definition > of "service to the community" it doesn't seem like a good fit here. > > Finally, this is wildly out of scope, but it may make sense to (either > here or separately) attempt to create a bit more content about what it > means to be an individual member of the DSF. That information is also > somewhat lacking, and having it somewhere may encourage more people to > apply. One possibility could be to link to one of the recent conference > talks[2][3] on the DSF. But wouldn't want that dis
