Hey there, Brian Nitz wrote: > Sections 3.2 and 3.3 of the Open Solaris Constitution specify the > categories of participation in the OpenSolaris community as follows:
I'd probably snip the bits of the constitution - while it provides good context, I think a link to it is more than sufficient. In all cases, you should probably make sure 'Contributor' and 'Core Contributor' have the proper capitalization. > The detailed process for gaining OpenSolaris "contributor" or "core > contributor" status is not specified in the OpenSolaris constitution. > Individual projects and communities are free to choose individual > criteria for this. This proposed criteria for the Desktop community > makes the following assumptions: > > o The goal is to encourage as many people to become contributors as possible > o The Desktop community recognizes that some contributions made to other > desktop-related opensource communities can improve the OpenSolaris desktop. s/opensource/open source/ > o Only registered OpenSolaris users can be accepted as contributor/core > contributors > o An on-line application form is available > o Volunteers must be available to process the applications Let's assume these these are all true, so let's drop them from the draft. I'd probably change the order around a little bit. First describe the roles involved in the desktop community as you mention a little further down the track. It gives good practical information for how and where people can get involved. Generally people need to be involved first before they should go for a Contributor or Core Contributor grant. > *Contributors* > > In order to become a recognized contributor to the desktop community: > > o You must be a registered user on the OpenSolaris website > o You must submit an on-line application I think it might be good to describe the on-line application form here and detail the information that they might include. I think any non-trivial improvement to the desktop is required here. Essentially we're trying to say 'the people who provide one bug fix, then bugger off and never seen again' shouldn't necessarily get contributor status. People who've been involved for at least a month or so actively involved in any of the roles you've listed should of course. Somehow being able to word that would be useful. I'd imagine we'd probably want some sort of reference here too - at the very least, it encourages talking to one another. > *Core Contributors* > > In order to vote in OpenSolaris elections you must be accepted as a > "core contributor". Core contributors are expected to have ongoing > contributions to the OpenSolaris community. The Desktop community > recommend that desktop core contributors stay active in the desktop > mailing lists or otherwise stay current on developments and needs in the > OpenSolaris desktop community. In order to apply for core contributor > status, check the box on the on-line application and submit the > following additional details: > > 1. What contributions have you made which should be considered for > core contributor status? > 2. Nominate at least two references which can verify your contribution. I think fundamentally the steps taken to get a Core Contributor grant should be the same as the Contributor grant. You just provide more information of what involvement you've had previously. > *Criteria for consideration of receiving core contributor status * > > Contributions to the OpenSolaris desktop community can be any of the > following: > > *1. Developer * > The primary group of the desktop community is probably developer. How do we > differentiate this? I suggest the following criterion in descending order: > o New features development project endorsed by the desktop community > o Inclusion of new modules through said, SFE or others for the desktop > o Bug fixing patches (should include a minimum number, say 20, the > number should > imply that the person is well versed with the desktop technology and > environment) I think we can say - a number (X) of non-trivial improvements. Maybe that number is 20, maybe it is more. Ideally it would be relatively obvious about how long that member has been around, and their involvement in the desktop community. > *2. QA * > o person who have logged significant number of bugs on the > OpenSolaris's desktop. > (again we need a number of minimum number of unique bugs to warrant > the contribution) Do we need numbers? Can it be judged by the people who are being added as referees? While I can appreciate the desire to have a 'fair' system, I'd at least partially advocate that the existing Core Contributors would be responsible and fair members. > *3. Doc Writer * > o person who has written technical blogs, user guide, articles > (assessment of this may be subjective,...) > > *4. Translator * > o person who has made some new translation for desktop project > (some sort of minimum number may be requird) > > *5. Deployer * > o person who has deployed OpenSolaris Desktop, not OpenSolaris. > (Their experience should be shared in some public forums, blogs or > otherwise, > not sure should there be a minimum number of depoyment) I'm not sure I understand this. Would this be a release engineer? Usually the people who have been involved in a specific distribution would be those already described in other roles. Otherwise it looks pretty good to me. Nice job! :) Glynn
