15

Thanks to all for the great support for this question:

Do we want Stack Exchange to become an institutional member of the TUG?

Stack Exchange will join the TUG!

SE can name up to eight TeX.SE members for individual membership. Each of them will:

So, how should we determine these members?

  • If you have several suggestions, it would be good to write an answer for each, so we can vote on them. – Stefan Kottwitz Sep 9 '11 at 20:37
  • Where was the decision announced? – Joseph Wright Sep 9 '11 at 20:46
  • Here :-) well, I got that statement last evening while personally talking about membership details with @Rebecca and Robin from the TUG office. A confirmation of SE may follow. For now we could continue with deciding how to determine individual members. If joining and and choosing members have been done, let's announce it on the blog. – Stefan Kottwitz Sep 9 '11 at 20:55
  • @JosephWright confirmed. We are moving forward on things from our end. I added a comment on the other post to indicate this as well. – Rebecca Chernoff Sep 9 '11 at 21:57
11

How about self-nomination, the way we had it for the moderator elections? This seemed to work well for us, as far as I remmeber. This saves a lot of hassle with who wants to participate and who can't/doesn't, and obviously TUG membership should imply at least some involvement with TUG activities, conferences and journals.

Besides that, I fully agree with doncherry that the moderators should automatically receive TUG membership for the duration of their term (rounded up as necessary for billing/administration reasons). This will be an extra incentive for involvement in the meta-development of the site (although I don't think we have a shortage of people willing to do so now). And it gives certain bragging rights in your local TUG as well.

19

Well, rewarding the three moderators for their work is a no-brainer (unless they're personal TUG members already and want to keep their personal membership).

  • 2
    I like the idea of there being institutional memberships that are automatically associated with the current moderators, although it would add a bit of bureaucracy to rotating moderators. Who would sort this out? We have some TUG directors here (Barbara and Taco are active), maybe they would know best. – Charles Stewart Sep 14 '11 at 12:57
  • 1
    Yes, it's a quite obvious choice, choosing already community elected representatives. I guess nomination and election would also validate it. – Stefan Kottwitz Sep 14 '11 at 21:49
11

Great news! I highly applaud this decision.

My first thought: automatically include the moderators, and for the rest start at the top of the list of high-rep people and ask if they'd like it!

(I'm not sure if I'm even in the top 10 for reputation these days but I already have membership, in case this seemed like me angling for a scheme that benefitted me.)

  • "angling for a scheme": it would be perfectly legitimate to ask for this benefit, or prefer a scheme that would benefit you, I think, otherwise how are we ever going to find some number of deserving members who don't already have some TUG membership or other already? – Charles Stewart Sep 14 '11 at 12:52
  • 2
    It was also my first thought, as moderator election and reputation provided by the community already give candidates. A free nomination though could show interested members who also deserve it, I think of earlier nominated moderators and members who are very active on meta. – Stefan Kottwitz Sep 14 '11 at 21:54

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .