FYI,
I'll start the process to recognize Vincent Wang as a CC of the Device
Drivers group.
-- Garret t
John Plocher wrote:
> The At Large community has been consistently interpreted by the CAB
> and previous OGB terms as a safety net for people not recognized
> elsewhere, not as a stand-in for "everyone who is active in community
> governance". We could change that interpretation, but I would rather
> we did it via a formal OGB proposal, discussion and vote rather than
> simply as fiat by you as Chair.
>
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 2:31 PM, Michelle Olson <michelle.olson at sun.com>
> wrote:
>
>> There is no valid reason to prevent addition of Contributors to the OGB
>> simply because they have CC grants in another community.
>>
>
> I believe there is:
>
> The constitution requires that *every* Core Contributor play an active
> role in the governance of the community, even if they don't want to
> (which is why we spent so much time last year crafting the
> constitutional changes to let us have a self-selected Electorate
> community). Most of the contributors you mentioned were simply doing
> their job as CCs of their communities. These active community members
> are certainly not falling thru the cracks.
>
> You did note, I hope, the +1's I gave to the two people on your list
> who had not been recognized by their home communities:
>
>
>> I'd be happy to +1 a couple who aren't recognized elsewhere, but even
>> for them I have a few questions:
>>
>>
>>> Deirdre Straughan developer summit support
>>>
>> +1 (but why here and not Advocacy?)
>>
>>
>>> Vincent R Wang facilitation of Device Driver CG grants
>>>
>> +1 (but why here and not in Device Drivers?)
>>
>
> ... but even there, what is preventing them from being recognized elsewhere?
>
>
>> ... The important piece is to give recognition where it is due
>>
>
> Absolutely! Our disconnect is simply about how to show that
> recognition and appreciation. I believe that overloading the safety
> net At Large Contributor designation to mean "A Core Contributor who
> is doing exactly what we expect Core Contributors to do" is not
> appropriate or desirable. Lets talk about ways to better recognize
> the leaders of well functioning communities and people who play an
> active role in OS.o community governance in a future OGB meeting!
>
>
>> Instead you would -1 (unbelievable!) a positive recognition
>>
>
> Oops, here you are taking my words out of context. I intentionally
> prefixed my comments with
>
>> Without casting any aspersions on the excellent
>> work done by the rest of your list, they all seem
>> to be already taken care of by their home communities,
>> where the facilitation or other contributions alluded
>> to is part of their being leaders there. As I see their
>> activities being squarely within the scope of their
>> existing communities, -1
>>
>
> Nowhere did I imply that they were not deserving of positive
> recognition or of praise; I was simply saying that you were using the
> wrong tool to do provide the recognition. Making them C's or CC's in
> the At Large community for doing things that are in the scope of their
> home communities IMO violates the "activities of the OpenSolaris
> Community that are not within the scope of any other Community Group"
> part of the definition of the At Large group.
>
>
>> my goals to actively reach out to people on the project
>>
>
> I fully support you in this goal. We are disagreeing about a possible
> implementation choice, not the problem statement.
>
> -John
> _______________________________________________
> ogb-discuss mailing list
> ogb-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss
>
