Keith M Wesolowski wrote: > On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 12:50:10PM -0800, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > > >> That doesn't make any sense. It is the responsibility of the existing >> core to nominate those who have earned it. If they don't, they are >> not caring for the future of that community. >> > > Amen. The simplest possible aspect of proactive governance is > perpetuating the regime. If a core contributor doesn't care enough > about the Group to acknowledge the people who have done the most work, > he should himself resign. That said, I don't want to see Groups with > 50 core contributors just because some feelings will be hurt > otherwise. I consider this a lot like getting promoted at work: if > your manager is doing his job properly, he'll get you promoted when > you deserve it. He'll also make sure you know exactly what is > expected of you in order to earn that promotion. Groups that aren't > doing this are broken. >
Hurt feelings aside, keep in mind that some CGs are bigger than others. Advocacy, for example, has more than 4,500 people spread out among 60 lists (56 of which are User Group Projects), so that CG could potentially have many more Core Contributors simply because they are drawing from a much bigger pool. I contacted all the UGs individually yesterday, and we in Advocacy will update our Contributor and Core Contributor lists so we are ready for the election. Jim -- http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris
