Shawn Walker wrote: > On 20/11/2007, Brian Nitz <Brian.Nitz at sun.com> wrote: > >> Ghee and I put together some draft opensolaris desktop contributor >> guidelines. Please let us know what you think: >> > > This is great! > > The key thing I see missing in both the Contributors and Core > Contributors sections is a section on "Responsibilities". > Specifically, what are the specific responsibilities that the Desktop > Community feels that their contributors and core contributors must > fulfil? > > Obviously, one of the primary responsibilities of a Core Contributor > is that of voting. > > It is my firm belief that Core Contributors must demonstrate a > continued willingness to participate in guiding their respective > community and projects by participating in the voting process. Someone > that continually (since there will always be exceptions) does not > participate in the decision-making process of a community or project > for which they are a core contributor should have their status > re-evaluated. > I agree that we need a Responsibilities section. Thanks for providing the basis for what I think the responsibilities should be.
> >> Your application will be processed by a working committee oversee by >> existing Core Contributors. >> > > Possibly s/overseen/administered/ ? > > Does this imply that members of the working committee would not have > to be core contributors themselves but could be contributors and/or > core contributors? > I think core contributors are few enough and busy enough that we shouldn't burden them as being the only ones who can act on the working committee. Maybe a few years from now when there are lots of core contributors we can revisit this.
