Ghee Teo wrote: > 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. I would at least like to know who I am voting for and seen what they are doing.
> >>>> 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? By the sounds of silence..... > Their contributions can be significant, but not necessary vocal > outside their list of > expertise or interest. To me shouting does not work. I tend not to read long emails :) What I would like is some visibility that somebody exists in the community. Doug
