John S: This is in no way a comment on the work you or the people you name are doing. It is merely picking up on the pressure for reform that was expressed at the Summit.
On May 10, 2008, at 18:51, John Plocher wrote: > John Sonnenschein wrote: >> Yes, of course ( Sorry Joerg, I didn't mean to slight you ). John >> Plocher as well ought to be added to the list. > > Thank you, but no - the core contributor grants should be > restricted to those who actually contribute - those of us > who simply pontificate should remain simply "interested" or > maybe "contributors". > > I'll let you run with the charter as you see fit since you > are closer to the problem than I am... I think we need to discuss this at an OGB meeting with respect to Article VII of the Constitution. It seems to me that a new CG should start out with /no/ CC grants of its own, and that they should be earned by contribution within the CG. To this end I suggest we explore interpreting ?7.4.3 to mean that the initial CCs of any new CG must be existing CCs from elsewhere in the community. With the freedom we have under ?7.8, we would then give all of the initial members Contributor grants. We would also need to interpret ?8.3 so that the initial outside CCs had CC votes in the new CG until their next renewal. This would have the handy side effect under ?7.12 of meaning that any CG that has failed to grow its own CCs by the time the grants of its founders expire would automatically be wound up. Views? S.
