Peter Tribble wrote:
> Groups have no role in adding Members. That's entirely in the hands of the
> membership committee.
Yes and no...
As I understand it, this proposal defines
A Member is
A CONTRIBUTER who wishes to have a vote in the
community-wide elections and decision-making
process.
A Contributer is
A PARTICIPANT who has been acknowledged by
one or more Groups as having substantively
contributed toward accomplishing the tasks
of that Group.
A Participant is
Someone who is participating in the
activities of a Group.
Unfortunately, there is no one-size-fits-all definition for
what it means to substantively contribute - which is why we
expect each group to define what "substantially" means in
their context.
Examples: "Has put back more than 5 changes to the consolidation
gate", "has led a User Group and developed and given more than 5
public presentations on OpenSolaris topics", "has taken over
responsibility for the upkeep and maintenance of more than 5 pages
on the OpenSolaris website" may all be reasonable definitions;
"has posted hundreds of messages to a mailing list" probably
isn't.
The OGB Membership committee will have the final say on each
group's definition because we want there to be equivalent
levels of effort across the various Groups and we want their
measures to be objective and repeatable. (And, yes, we expect
there to be substantial sharing and reuse of definitions across
the various Groups)
Once a group has an approved membership policy, the OGB (which
does not at all want to be in the clerical business) is willing
to delegate the "please make me a contributer and/or member of
your Group" authority and ability to the facilitator(s) of that
group. It will do that by adding the group's facilitator(s) to
the Membership Committee, and by giving all of that committee's
members the authority to use the make-a-new-contributer-or-member
webapp tools.
Clear as mud?
-John
