On 10/02/2009, at 1:09 PM, John Plocher wrote: > On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 4:27 AM, James Carlson > <james.d.carlson at sun.com> wrote: >> Alan Burlison writes: >>> I don't think this level of detail needs to be in the constitution, >> To me, the key issue isn't whether the specific procedures are in the >> constitution, but rather whether they're required or merely >> "recommended." > > Jim, > > I tend to agree with this - there are several different types of > groups, which means a one-size-fits-all won't, but neither will having > hundreds of different procedures on a per-group-instance basis, one > each slightly different from all the others. > > Jim's suggestion of having 4 (or 5 or 6...) mandatory procedures, one > for each group "type", is exactly what I have been envisioning. Not > surprisingly, the strawman process document referenced from the draft > constitution > (http://wiki.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/OGB_Group_Management_Guidelines > ) > tried to capture this thought, although what is there is superficial > and incomplete and can certainly be improved, either now or after the > constitution is voted upon, or both :-)
I think a set of guidelines is enough here - suggesting that people who do good work should be acknowledged by giving them direct commit privileges or additional responsibilities. If we start going down the route of having required bits, we've just walked a circle and back to the original formal approach of the constitution which (IMO) got in the way of the dynamism of an open source community. Glynn
