Ghee Teo wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > Knowing your approach, always gentle ... > > Stephen Lau wrote: > >> snap... >> >> This is going to sound more negative than I mean, but don't ask for core >> contributor status just because you feel like it, or even because you >> believe or deserve it. I've said it before, and I'll re-iterate it >> here: core contributors and contributors should really only differ in >> voting rights and responsibilities. >> >> > Voting rights is a privilege and come with it the responsibilities. I > agree here :). > >> I say both rights & responsibilities because being a core contributor >> means you are making a commitment to be involved and participate >> *actively* in THIS Desktop Community. Which means staying afloat and >> current on everything that's going on, weighing in on community >> decisions, and in general playing a really active role in the >> community. >> > This is only one specific aspect of the community, not everyone is > interested [1] > But if a Core Contributor is not doing this but hacking away on many > technical > area and wanted to be a Core Contributor, why should s/he be rejected? > If they are hacking away and have no community involvement, then why should they be a Core Contributor? Are you wanting to encourage the old Sun practice of throwing contributions over the wall when and if they feel like it. Encouraging the Sun developers out of the closet and into community involvement is long overdue.
>> If you intend to do this, then awesome - that totally >> warrants you asking for core contributor status. >> >> If you are like me, and perhaps just lazy and want the recognition >> without any of the responsibilities (and take it from an OGB member, the >> responsibilities start to weigh you down after a while), >> >> or *want* to be >> involved but can't make the commitment to stay up to date and be active >> constantly -- then stick with contributor. It's easier. It's less >> stress. It means you can just hack, and code in peace while peacefully >> ignoring the flames and mess that can arise with passionate, diverse, >> and involved communities. >> > While this may be true for most of the time, but what if the Core > Contributors of > the Desktop community is making some proposal which would impact your happy > coding away mode, you have *NO* right to vote on it. > Not being able to vote does not stop your ability to do your own coding or distributing your code. If you do not want to be part of the community, then you should not expect to vote in it. > It is with this same line of rationales, I encourage openly or > privately all of the > Desktop communities to go for Core Contributor status so that we have the > opportunities to exercise the rights given the responsibilities of > contributing to > the works. In particularly, we want to have sufficient representative > say in the > voting of the greater OpenSolaris issues, such as OGB member etc. > > Currently, we have 10 Core Contributors from the Desktop communities > in the total of 325 Core Contributors, are we been proportional represented? > [Bearing in mind, the total number of Core Contributors will increase not > sure by how much] > Ok, I will vote for my parents, grandparents, brothers, sisters, wife, daughter etc to become core contributors so desktop can dominate the voting for the OGB :) > Do we not think we should 'reserve' the rights to vote if we have been > given responsibility to 'contribute' in the communities we work in? > We are working within the bounds of the constitution. Desktops is not the battle ground for this topic. Doug
