On 20/11/2007, Mike Kupfer <mike.kupfer at sun.com> wrote: > >>>>> "Shawn" == Shawn Walker <swalker at opensolaris.org> writes: > > Shawn> 2) Not every technical decision is going to require a vote and > Shawn> thus those that are primarily interested only in the technical > Shawn> aspects would be best suited with a contributor grant. > > I'm not sure I understand you. The people you want as core contributors > are those you trust to make decisions for the group. Those decisions > can be technical or non-technical.
Sorry, I wasn't implying that the only votes would be non-technical. I wasn't even trying to address the non-technical situation. Just to be clear... I guess what I was saying is that it is still possible to drive technical direction simply by doing the work without having a "formal voting power." Likewise, it's possible to drive non-technical work in the same way. > So, I agree that people who only want to produce code, but who don't > want to take on the responsibilities of technical leadership, should be > contributors, not core contributors. But if someone is interested in > (only) technical leadership, they should be eligible for core > contributorship. That person just needs to understand that it's > important to vote on other issues (a "0" vote--abstention--is always an > option). Yes, that's what I was really trying to drive at. Thanks for putting that in better words. The importance of voting makes me think voting should be compulsory; i.e. at the very least you should always cast an abstain. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "We don't have enough parallel universes to allow all uses of all junction types--in the absence of quantum computing the combinatorics are not in our favor..." --Larry Wall
