Doug Scott wrote: > Brian Nitz wrote: >> *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 > This is very light on. I think 'affiliate' already covers this role. > What is lacking here is contributions..... O.K. maybe affiliate is sufficient for this step, though I suspect some people assume "affiliate" is what signs you up to the community's email list. We still need a separate application step to make sure people don't accidentally apply to become Contributor's and overwhelm the Contributor welcome committee with unintentional applications. That step should include contributions. Maybe we should change the affiliate link to automatically ask for details on contributions and ask if the user would like to submit an application for Contributor status in this community? > > For a contributor personally I would like to see contributions > (sustained) to something directly related to OpenSolaris Desktops. > Something aimed at Solaris 10 is not as appropriate as contributions > to SFE. I agree, only sustained contributions not targeted at Solaris 10 should be considered. Within Sun's desktop group, that line can be a bit blurry because the Gnome desktop was open in Solaris 10 and Solaris 9, long before ON was open source. So some changes targeted for the Open Solaris GNOME desktop do make their way back to Solaris 10 (and Linux, FreeBSD) and I suspect some bug fixes for Solaris 10 do find their way into Open Solaris.
> Also contributions to OpenSolaris.org desktop projects are given a > *much* higher weighting than projects base on other sites, unless that > site is a direct feeder to a desktop OpenSolaris.org project(s), i.e. > SFE is a good example. To me an OpenSolaris.org contributor grant is > only releted to contributions to the OpenSolaris.org community. If a > contribution is made elsewhere, then that contribution should be > reconized by grants at the other community. I'm not sure what you mean by "much higher weighting", desktop does have more visibility than some of the other projects and I suspect if you add up all of the projects and code in desktop it exceeds what you'll find in many other Open Solaris communities but I don't think it should necessarily have more weighting. > > Helpful contributions to the desktop-discuss is a *requirement*. I agree. > >> *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 the key difference between contributor and core contributor > status is long term sustained contributions. There should be a fairly > big difference in what is required for a contributor and what is > required for a core contributor, and it should reflect a long term > commitment to the OpenSolaris.org desktop community. Fair enough. As of the first general election though, very few had long term sustained contributions. Open Solaris is still a relatively young community. If we bias it too much towards really long term sustained contributions, it might be heavily biased towards Sun employees. > >> *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) >> > This is good, but I don't like to put a number on the bug fixes. Some > bugs are bugger than others. I agree, we didn't intend to put a number on number of bugs fixed or lines of code contributed. We need to give the Contributor evaluation committee some flexibility and trust to do what is fair. > >> *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) > Not quite sure about this one at the moment. Gnome and other OpenSource communities value QA contributions. I think there is a good reason for this, especially in desktop where there an enormous variety of code paths must be tested to cover the enormous variety of use cases (much more so than kernel). If there were no QA, we would have to depend on individual desktop communities (GNOME/KDE/OpenOffice.org/Firefox) to thoroughly test their code on OpenSolaris. In a world where Linux makes up the lion's share of GNOME/KDE users and Windows makes up the majority of OpenOffice/Firefox users, OpenSolaris won't get the test coverage it needs without specific QA contributions within the OpenSolaris community. I would also add "Support" as a role which would be hard to live without. If you've watched some opensource community mailing lists and IRC chat channels you'll see that some coders have no patience for questions from newbies. Anyone who has watched the Gnome community for a while will understand how valuable it is to have patient people filling the "support" role. > >> >> *3. Doc Writer * >> o person who has written technical blogs, user guide, articles >> (assessment of this may be subjective,...) > I think this would be more a qualification for the documentation or > advocacy community. >> >> *4. Translator * >> o person who has made some new translation for desktop project >> (some sort of minimum number may be requird) > Again, this would be enough for a grant in the internationalization > and localization community, though I would view it as a great positive > to a grant in the desktop community. The current OpenSolaris community organization is arbitrary. I have no problem passing the docs role off to the documentation community and the translator role off to the translator community, evangelist role off to the advocacy community as long as it isn't dropped altogether as some of those communities seem to be less active and less visible and some contributions truly are cross community. Maybe part of the role of the selection committee would be to transfer applicants to other communities where appropriate? > >> >> *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) > Don't know what you are driving at here. If somebody works for a large > company and deploys to thousands of desktops, then should they be > given a grant on OpenSolaris.org? If so, if somebody is blogging or > discussing OpenSolaris Desktops elsewhere, then I think that the > Advocacy community is a better fit here. I personally don't think deploying a large number of OpenSolaris desktops should _automatically_ be given a grant. But it can be a struggle getting an open source project deployed in any organization. If the OpenSolaris.org community doesn't recognize that such a role does significantly contribute to the overall stability and acceptance of OpenSolaris, I think we're missing an enormous opportunity. Maybe such contributions would come in the form of QA, source patches, convenience scripts, documentation or "evangelism." So while it might not be absolutely necessary to define this role in the Contributor guidelines, I think we should in order to encourage those who are in the position to deploy OpenSolaris desktops and bring back lessons they learned to the community. > >> *6. Evangelist * >> o High profile people who primary role is to evangelize and of the >> component of >> the desktop communities. > I think Evangelist is squarely in the Advocacy community here. > > Doug -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/desktop-discuss/attachments/20071121/dac3407b/attachment.html>
