On 04/23/09 06:49, Shawn Walker wrote: > 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. That's really the best way to look at it. And that's implied in section 3.1 but it should be stated explicitly in 3.3 since that section outlines the four roles. Some people point to 3.3 and say the distinction between C and CC is not that great, and they are correct if they read that section only. The big distinction comes when you back up to 3.1, and there you read that CCs are Members (which is not listed as a role) and they are the people who vote across the entire community. > Either that, or we may need to (in the long-term) separate the > governance aspects of the individuals CGs and the I agree. Overall, I find that many people want to be CCs because that role is implied to be the top level. I disagree with that implication. I'd much rather we separate governance from development as much as possible as you suggest (which was attempted in the new constitution by reducing roles and centralizing the Membership process with the OGB). That way people can focus on what they feel is most important for their own interests. Some will focus narrowly on a given project, while others will focus more broadly across the entire community. To me those two are simply different. One is not more important than the other.
Jim -- http://twitter.com/jimgris
