On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Peter Tribble wrote: > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 8:52 PM, Peter Tribble<peter.tribble at gmail.com> > wrote: >> I took an AI at the last meeting but one to go back and see where we had >> got to with regards to defunct communities. > > And in the last meeting we basically got to the stage of deciding to either > pick one community, or group the list into buckets and deal with the lowest > hanging bucket. So, of the 18 I'm going to define: > > Bucket 1 - those "communities" that have never had any core contributors > > Appliances > Chinese Users > Databases > Games > HPC > Observability > SVM > UFS > > Bucket 2 - those that have no current core contributors > > Approachability > Printing > PowerPC (only has 1) > > This is an objective metric based on the poll database, but does > match my original thoughts. > > If we want to obey the letter of the constitution, all those in both > buckets are invalid and are already officially terminated according > to section 7.12 of the constitution: > > 7.12. Termination. A Community Group is terminated by act of the OGB > or by reduction of its named Core Contributors to a number less than > three (3). Upon termination, the OGB may re-initiate the Community > Group with a new set of Core Contributors or reassign the resources > that were assigned to the Community Group, such as mailing lists, > forums, and website information, to the at-large community or to some > other Community Group of the OGB's choosing. > > (I'm not sure I agree with that, as it doesn't allow the option of letting > communities in trouble sort themselves out. So much for CGs being > self-governing.)
depends on how you read it - they can certainly approach us witht heir new CCs for us to assign to the community :) > We can't actually do anything until phase 2 of the website transition > is done, which gives up some time to work this out. > > It would seem appropriate to email the list (for those that have mailing > lists) for each community, asking for suggestions for ways forward or > for potential leaders to put their hands up. So are we going to simply > appoint a "volunteer" to do so? I think that is a good idea, unfortunately, I don't have the cycles to do it at this time. Valerie -- Valerie Fenwick, http://blogs.sun.com/bubbva/ @bubbva Solaris Security Technologies, Developer, Sun Microsystems, Inc. 17 Network Circle, Menlo Park, CA, 94025.
