Jim Grisanzio wrote: > I'm going to go ahead and finalize this for our new policy. You guys > cool with that? We can always evolve it as need be ... > > Jim >
+1 Jim > > > Jim Grisanzio wrote: >> I'd like to add one more thing. I think we should make clear that both >> Core Contributors /and/ Contributors need to accept their grants on >> list. So, if I nominate John Smith for Contributor and Joe Ryan adds a >> +1 I think John Smith should respond with a "thanks, I accept the grant" >> note so we all know that John actually wants it. Again, the Constitution >> is clear for Core Contributors about this but is silent on Contributors >> accepting their grant. >> >> Jim >> >> >> Jim Grisanzio wrote: >> >>> Brandorr wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Is not one participant enough to start a user group? I know when we >>>> started it was only two participants, but really only one was needed. >>>> (Once the UG is formed, we got more just because it existed and we >>>> were able to advertise it's existence. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> I actually wanted to have a minimum of five, to be honest. :) I think >>> three is more than reasonable, but I'd accept two if people really >>> wanted that change. However, I'm not at all willing to go to one. >>> >>> >>> >>>> Finally, I don't see any reason why people can't nominate themselves. >>>> (We actually allowed this in the past, and for this last round of >>>> nominations.) (They still would need the three approvals.) I just feel >>>> it is kinda silly, because what you will end up having is people >>>> saying "Please nominate me." >>>> instead of "I nominate myself and I need three approvals". It's >>>> effectively the same thing, no? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Nominate themselves for what? Core Contributor or Contributor? >>> >>> The Constitution (7.8) is clear about the Core Contributor in that >>> he/she needs to be nominated by a Core Contributor, get the votes, etc. >>> However, the Constitution says very little about Contributors, so I'm >>> trying to find a balance here until the Constitution is updated. Earlier >>> in the thread I had it that people could nominate themselves for >>> Contributor and if they got no -1 votes they'd get in. That wasn't good. >>> So, I put +1 voting back in for Contributors but set it to two +1 votes, >>> whereas Core Contributors have to get three +1s. So, I'm cool with >>> people nominating themselves for Contributor status /with the addition/ >>> of +1 voting I added in this version of the document. >>> >>> So, under this scenario, if I nominate Participant John Smith to be a >>> Contributor, he starts out with one +1 vote since I nominated him and he >>> only needs one more +1 vote. If he nominates himself, he needs to find >>> two +1votes because he has no nomination and the bar should be one tick >>> higher. That seems like a good way to go for now. Keep in mind that the >>> Constitution is not even clear on the notion of nominations counting as >>> +1votes. I'm adding that since it just seems reasonable. >>> >>> So, shall I make these changes and publish this? >>> >>> Jim >>> > _______________________________________________ > advocacy-discuss mailing list > advocacy-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy-discuss
