On May 20, 2008, at 00:35, Jim Grisanzio wrote: > One of the things that came up on the OGB call today was voting and > the > characteristic of the OpenSolaris electorate. We wanted to put this on > list for discussion. This is also related to how people become > contributors and/or core contributors under a potential community re- > org. > > I support the notion that in order to become a voting member someone > has > to assert they want the status. Go register to vote, in other words > (using the US process as an example). So, in OpenSolaris, that could > mean someone asserts they want to be a core contributor and provides > substantiation of contribution, or someone else offers a person as a > core contributor with substantiation and the person accepts. > > However, there are many people participating in the community who are > /not/ contributors or core contributors and have no desire to be. > That's > fine. It could be a personal choice or cultural characteristic, and we > as a community need to accommodate this. In other words, just because > you don't vote or participate in cross-community discussions about > governance issues doesn't mean you are not a valuable member (small > "m") > of the community. I also think it's fine that community leaders go out > and actively engage people in governance because that's good community > building and a way to educate people around the world about how the > community functions at its core. The more options for participation > people have the better. > > My view is based on the repeated experience of going out and trying to > make voters out of people who may not be interested in governance. I'd > rather build community by getting people involved and contributing for > peer recognition at a local or global scale, and than out of that pool > of people a voting block will naturally emerge. > > Anyone feel strongly either way? Did I miss anything from the > discussion?
Thanks, Jim, good summary. I'd agree with giving community-wide governance-only voting rights to anyone who has a demonstrable history of contribution, on request by that person or with the confirmation of that person to the request of another. Should we call those people "members" and decouple the status from rank in the various community groups? S.
