Stephen Lau wrote: > Doug Scott wrote: >> 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. > Ignoring my juvenile desire to make jokes about coming out of the > closet for a second... > I don't think people being a contributor or core contributor > necessarily reflect open source practices. Arguably, many of Sun's > Desktop QA team devote countless hours to improving upstream open > source code bases (GNOME or Mozilla being the obvious examples), > filing bugs in their bugzillas, etc. They may be quiet on the lists, > but they're there - and they certainly aren't throwing stuff over the > wall and skulking away. > So I agree with Ghee that they should be recognised for their work - > and if they want recognition *as well* as the additional > responsibilities of helping to lead and set direction for the Desktop > Community - then "Core Contributor" is fine by me. If they want Core Contributor, the first thing to do is to make sure people in the community know you exist. It should not be the first email you send is asking for Core Contributor.
> But if they don't want to play the active role in leading the > Desktop Community, then "Contributor" should be the more appropriate > role. I do think it is overdue that many Sun Employee's who have been contributing through Sun or an external community should be given recognition for their work, especially if they do a lot of it in their own time. Unless they have been a visible part of the OpenSolaris.Org community, I feel it is a bit much to be considered a core contributor though. If all their only communication is upstream, then a grant upstream is more appropriate. Doug
