John Plocher wrote:
>
> 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.
I have mixed feelings about that.
A lot of "core contributors" don't have the level of seniority that I'd
like to see from ARC members. Some of them don't even have any software
engineering experience (e.g. the "core contributors" from the user
groups community, or the docs group.) I know that the laptop community
has some core contributors that I would think do not meet the seniority
criteria to stand on PSARC, for example.
I'd like to think that we can define (via OGB) some initial ARC
membership, and that ARC leadership can elect new members as it sees fit.
By the way, you can take this as an explicit offer (I think I've said as
much in the past) on my part to intern on ARC or PSARC.
I probably don't have the ON experience that PSARC would like to see
from a full member, but I'm aggressively working to close that gap. :-)
-- Garrett
