On Wed, 22 Apr 2009, Shawn Walker wrote:
> Valerie Bubb Fenwick wrote:
>> Note: I don't believe, under the current constitution, that we can
>> take any action if they do not follow through - but having a policy
>> in place (and getting email validation of the policy) before grants
>> are given/renewed will insure that people are aware of their
>> responsibilities
>> and may think twice before accepting a core contributor grant.
>>
>> Research has shown that getting such commitments does lead to better
>> compliance ("Influence: Science and Practice" Robert B. Cialdini)
>>
>> I think there may be some voter apathy because people do not realize
>> that they are expected to vote as part of having this status.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
> I think CGs need to realise that they can use the "Contributor" role to
> recognise individuals that have contributed, but that "Core Contributor"
> should be reserved for those that have an active desired to be involved in CG
> Governance and governance of the entire community.
I agree. Would you like to see the above policy modified to include
that as well?
> Either that, or we may need to (in the long-term) separate the governance
> aspects of the individuals CGs and the community.
That was handled by the "new" constitution, but that didn't pass. :S
Valerie
--
Valerie Fenwick, http://blogs.sun.com/bubbva
Solaris Security Technologies, Developer, Sun Microsystems, Inc.
17 Network Circle, Menlo Park, CA, 94025.
