Membership should not be subject to people “patching” Hostea but also to people who discuss and are otherwise active without changing anything to what Hostea is, as a project.
Here is an idea for amending the rules: membership is gained by contributions of any kind. Access to exclusive resources is restricted to members that are the most active patches contributors.
I’m fine with the idea that the Hostea DNS is controlled by the most active people with the skillset that allow them to produce patches. Not just for code, it can be documentation, it can be modifications to the website since it is also in a repository. I’m less comfortable if that can also happen with a group of very talkative people who do not modify Hostea itself through patches. There are two reasons for that:
- Hostea is, at the core, a technical project and such a rule ensures that control remains in the hands of people who have at least the ability to improve the project with patches of some kind. Otherwise it could be entirely controlled by people who do not know or want to produce any patch to improve or fix Hostea.
- All exclusive resources require a minimum of discipline and technical know how. A DNS must be renewed and configured properly, the glue record must be set, domain transfer must occasionally happen, etc. It is likely that people who have the ability to produce patches on a regular basis also have the ability to properly care for these exclusive resources.
The following rule can be removed. Anyone can be a member of the collective.
- An individual or organization is a Hostea member if they contributed at least four patches in the past year
And the following rule:
- Members with access to an exclusive resource are listed publicly and share it with the most active (number of patches) members when asked to
can be modified to:
- Members trusted with the credentials of an exclusive resource are listed publicly and share it with the most active (number of patches) members when asked to
The modification of with access to an exclusive resource to trusted with the credentials of an exclusive resource is meant to clarify that this is only about sharing passwords, essentially. Not that some spaces are private, which would go against the idea of radical transparency.