On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Jim Grisanzio <Jim.Grisanzio at sun.com> wrote: > Jim Walker wrote: >> This is why we want the new constitution to a pass. >> It separates the two roles. > > When you say separate do you really mean collapse? In other words, the > collapsing of the two governance roles of Contributor and Core Contributor > into one governance role called Contributor? That`s the obvious change I > see, so I just wanted to clarify.
The intent of the new constitution is to separate the roles of "someone who has contributed to the community, and therefore has acquired merit" and "someone who has merit and desires to participate in the governance of the larger community". Contributors and Leaders (those who have merit) get to *choose* whether or not they want to help govern the OS community; the global governance designation of "member of the electorate" is a voluntarily chosen one. The current constitution irrevocably intertwines the two concepts and forces every leader who has acquired merit to also play a role in community governance. Every leader of a community is a Core Contributor, and every Core Contributor is also a member of the electorate. The only way a leader can get out of being in the electorate is to resign their Core Contributorship. This sucks because it bloats the electorate with people who don't care and because it conflates the concepts of local and global leadership. > it. In general, if people are writing code and integrating code into Project > repositories, the role they need is "Developer" and that role does not have > any connection to the governance roles. The webapp today implements a non-constitutional view - it violates 3.3. Roles [current one] and 1.1.2 Roles [proposed] by blatantly ignoring the concept of "having substantively contributed" and its implicit ties to group leadership by a meritocracy. Instead of having leadership by people who have acquired merit by contributing substantial things, we now have leaders and developers who have no requirement to have contributed anything at all. The rationalization is that only global community leadership needs to be tied to merit and contributions. -John
