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? > To me this proposal is for the desktop community to be pro-active in recognizing contributions by participants. Anyone who spends time regularly making constructive suggestions and contribute in any way as listed by the roles proposed should be given an opportunity to become a contributor. The expectation is of course that once the status has be granted the person will continue to contribute in the similar capacities if possible. Since there is only 6 unique contributors (Doug is both a contributor and core contributor) in the desktop community.
Secondly, we want to increase the number of core contributors in the desktop community. Looking at http://vote.opensolaris.org/ we have 10 core contributors and 7 contributors. 8 out of 10 core contributors were granted in the boot strap phase (2007-02-24). We have 11 unique communities under desktop. I would think we need at least 2 core contributors in each of the community. The current number may only reflect the specific activities level of each these communities, will proper recognization encourages activity, may be :) > Obviously, one of the primary responsibilities of a Core Contributor > is that of voting. > This is important. I would like to think if all the communities within the current desktop community is active. If we measure the scope by line of code, it will certainly be one of the BIGGEST slice of the OpenSolaris community while it has only 10 votes out of the roughly of 390 core contributors. So I think this is important to at proportionally represented better. > 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. > This is probably a harder thing to pin-point in practice, some one who is very good in guiding technical decision can make significant contribution technically may not want to involve in how the community is organized or run. Though I would at least expect they should utilize their rights to vote regardless of their taste as in the constitution of OpenSolaris, they are representing the communities in the higher level, > >> 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? > My thinking is approval for contributors be done by working committee who themselves are not necessary core contributors but are entrusted by the core contributors for a fixed length of time of specific delegated tasks. For approval of as a core contributor, article 7.8 dictates that it has to be nominated by a core contributor and approve by consensus vote. http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/cab/governance/#ARTICLE_VII.__Community_Groups But the working committee could filter the applications and pass onto the core contributors for final approval. In this way, the seeking of core contributors can be a two ways process. -Ghee
