Glynn Foster wrote: > I assume you're actually suggesting that we have a group of leadership > roles right across the community. That certainly makes sense - there > are people who can commit code, people who organize meetings or talk > at events, and people edit websites. I'm not necessary convinced there > needs to be a forced relationship between those people and the OGB, > but in the description of roles, I think it makes better (more > natural) sense than other suggested roles.
I'm not seeing it as one group that is cross-community (even though it very well may be in theory or from a webapp perspective) but I just want some sort of simple leadership model for each Group so we have some accountability. The Facilitator role was never really scoped for that purpose. Earlier this week I had thought that leaders would simply engage because they'd have to in order to get resources. But the exchange with Alan changed my mind, so the addition of a Leader role just makes sense. It's obvious. So, if we reorg in a simple way there is no reason to have Leaders and Facilitators so I'd pull the OGB Facilitator role of out this model: http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ogb-discuss/2008-July/005831.html. When I say I don't see it as a cross community role what I mean is that those guys will most likely not /act as a group/. I don't see that cross-community behavior in the Solaris engineering culture and I don't see that on OpenSolaris either. And that's fine. They'd act as local leaders of their own stuff in a pretty significantly distributed model. Jim -- http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris/
