On Mon, 13 Apr 2009, Michelle Olson wrote: > Hi John, > > There is no valid reason to prevent addition of Contributors to the OGB > simply because they have CC grants in another community. (Those are > Contributors in my list, not CCs!!) The important piece is to give > recognition where it is due to the folks who did a lot of work on behalf of > OGB this year, which you've clearly missed the value in.
Hi Michelle - I personally missed that some were just contributor nominations, perhaps due to overwhelming inbox the last few weeks (due to a cold and intense project design going on). I am trying to take due care in reading every message in detail, but in case you hadn't noticed that's gotten me further behind. Not a good way to start the term! So, be forgiving if some nuances of your mails are missed - we all have a lot on our plates. > Instead you would -1 (unbelievable!) a positive recognition of their > promotion to Contributor and remind us that *your* grant be extended, very > rich! Things are either a bit more dysfunctional than I had thought, I'm > missing something, or I'm not doing a good job of communicating my goals to > actively reach out to people on the project or all of the above...Whatever > the case, I will plow on with trying to do something positive in this space. My hesitation with making more core contributors has to do with the low voter turn out we've had for the last few elections - the greater that number, the more folks we need to make quorum in IRC before we can even vote! We had discussed a possible OGB policy on this, but I haven't yet sent out the draft - so perhaps the large list of nominations before those discussions threw folks off (they certainly did me). I was also confused by seeing the new OGB members as "nominations". AlanC has confirmed we should get that automatically. Valerie -- Valerie Fenwick, http://blogs.sun.com/bubbva Solaris Security Technologies, Developer, Sun Microsystems, Inc. 17 Network Circle, Menlo Park, CA, 94025.
