Doug Scott wrote:
>>
>>
>>> 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?
When they are hacking away, it doesn't mean they are not
involved with other communities members.
The Desktop communities is probably unique within OpenSolaris where code
are flowing in to start with
rather than throwing over the wall. I am talking about people who works
away but does not necessary
want to spend their energy in the debate should as we have it here.
> Are you wanting to encourage the old Sun practice of throwing
> contributions over the wall when and if they feel like it.
No.
> Encouraging the Sun developers out of the closet and into community
> involvement is long overdue.
We should. There are different level of open community level
involvement. I believe all within Desktop group in
Sun are doing it already at different levels. Of course, more can be done.
One area that needs more effort is to encourage the QA works into the
open. May be there are other areas too.
>>> 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.
How can we determine a person who do not want to be part of the community?
Their contributions can be significant, but not necessary vocal outside
their list of
expertise or interest.
>
>> 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 :)
yeah, you may. But they have to register first :)
>
>> 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.
OK. Out of bound on this.
-Ghee
>
> Doug
