Alan Coopersmith wrote: > For the ARC community specifically, I was surprised both by not > including the people who had worked to make the case histories > open (I thought Glynn & Danek had done a lot of work there)
The work was done mostly by EricB and myself, with prompting and advice copiously provided by Danek. > by including a large list of people who have never submitted or > participated in any open review, while ignoring those who have > but had primary affiliation with another ARC (such as Danek, > Darren, and myself). Glynn, Danek, EricB and yourself were already Core contributers elsewhere (I checked), so there was no need (for the election) to duplicate your names here. Since PSARC was the only ARC that had formally started participating as an ARC, I focused my bootstrapping attention there. I'm pretty sure I sent mail while I was in India in early March to the arc aliases @opensolaris (which, of course, I can't find in the fora) describing the selection criteria I used to select the ARC Core contributers [effectively: psarc-members + me => core, interns and licensees => contributers]. I also solicited updates and changes; since nobody responded, I presumed the list was good enough. Following up on Glynn's comment that contributer status should be something that is asked for and not simply granted, I note that *nobody* has ever asked to be either an ARC community contributer or a core contributer. This actually may be a good thing, since in the long run (post- PSARC-transition...) the ARC community should IMHO explicitly be a derived one - the Core Contributers from all the other communities should be defined to be the ARC Community. In this view, you, Danek, Glynn (etc) would all automatically be Core Contributers of the OpenSolaris ARC Community.... -John
